BOBLME-2011-Ecology-09

Transcription

1 BOBLME-2011-Ecology-09

2 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. BOBLME contract: PSA-LEN 28/09/2010 For bibliographic purposes, please reference this publication as: BOBLME (2011) Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries. BOBLME-2011-Ecology-09

3 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Small pelagic gillnet vessels in Negombo, Sri Lanka Trawler in Phuket, Thailand March 2011 Prepared by 711 REG

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND TO THE BOBLME PROJECT Environment and fisheries in the Bay of Bengal The Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME) Project INTRODUCTION TO THIS REPORT Objectives Methodology Report Structure REGIONAL SYNTHESIS INDIAN MACKEREL OVERVIEW Biology of Indian mackerel Description of main fleets and gears, and units of assessment Current effort, catches (volume & value) and socio economic importance PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS AND MANAGEMENT Stock status/outcome Harvest strategy / stock management PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEMS Retained bycatch Discarded bycatch ETP species interactions Habitat interactions Ecosystem impacts PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERIES GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Governance and policy Fisheries specific management systems CONCLUSIONS KEY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES REGIONAL SYNTHESIS HILSA SHAD OVERVIEW Biology of the hilsa shad Description of main fleets and gears, and units of assessment Current effort, catches (volume & value) and socio economic importance PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS AND MANAGEMENT Stock status/outcome Harvest strategy / stock management PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEMS Retained bycatch Discarded bycatch ETP species interactions Habitat interactions Ecosystem impacts... 66

5 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 3.4 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERIES GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Governance and policy Fisheries specific management systems CONCLUSIONS KEY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE INTEGRATION OF THE FINDINGS INTO THE BOBLME PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Indian mackerel Conservation and Management Hilsa shad conservation and Management NON FISHERIES SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS INTO THE BOBLME PROJECT Appendices APPENDIX A: REFERENCES APPENDIX B: THE MSC PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES APPENDIX C: COUNTRY REPORT BANGLADESH APPENDIX D: COUNTRY REPORT INDIA (TAMIL NADU & WEST BANGAL) APPENDIX E: COUNTRY REPORT INDONESIA APPENDIX F: COUNTRY REPORT MALAYSIA APPENDIX G: COUNTRY REPORT MALDIVES APPENDIX H: COUNTRY REPORT MYANMAR APPENDIX I: COUNTRY REPORT SRI LANKA APPENDIX J: COUNTRY REPORT THAILAND Tables TABLE 1: INDICATORS ASSOCIATED WITH PRINCIPLE 1 (STOCK STATUS) USED TO ASSESS INDIAN MACKEREL AND HILSA FISHERIES... 5 TABLE 2: PRINCIPLE 2 (ECOSYSTEMS IMPACTS) INDICATORS USED TO ASSESS INDIAN MACKEREL & HILSA FISHERIES... 6 TABLE 3: INDICATORS ASSOCIATED WITH PRINCIPLE 3 (MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS) USED TO ASSESS INDIAN MACKEREL AND HILSA FISHERIES... 7 TABLE 4: PRODUCTIVITY ATTRIBUTES AND SCORES... 9 TABLE 5: SUSCEPTIBILITY ATTRIBUTES AND SCORES TABLE 6: INDIAN MACKEREL KEY PRODUCTIVITY ATTRIBUTES TABLE 7: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR INDIAN MACKEREL TABLE 8: MAIN FLEETS/GEARS TARGETING INDIAN MACKEREL, AND UNITS OF ASSESSMENT TABLE 9: VESSEL NUMBERS, CATCHES, AND MARKETS FOR INDIAN MACKEREL TABLE 10: SUMMARY TABLE FOR PRINCIPLE 1; INDIAN MACKEREL TABLE 11: SUMMARY TABLE FOR PRINCIPLE 2; INDIAN MACKEREL TABLE 12: PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS (PSA) FOR MAIN RETAINED SPECIES BY GEAR TYPE TABLE 13: ETP SPECIES IN THE BAY OF BENGAL TABLE 14: SUMMARY TABLE FOR PRINCIPLE 3; INDIAN MACKEREL TABLE 15: AVERAGE SCORES BY PRINCIPLES INDIAN MACKEREL TABLE 16: SUMMARY ASSESSMENT FOR ALL PRINCIPLES AND INDICATORS; INDIAN MACKEREL TABLE 17: HILSA KEY PRODUCTIVITY ATTRIBUTES TABLE 18: GEAR WISE PSA TABLE FOR HILSA SHAD IN THE BAY OF BENGAL FISHERIES TABLE 19: PSA FOR HILSA TABLE 20: MAIN FLEETS/GEARS TARGETING HILSA SHAD, AND UNITS OF ASSESSMENT TABLE 21: VESSEL NUMBERS, CATCHES, AND MARKETS FOR HILSA SHAD TABLE 22: SUMMARY TABLE FOR PRINCIPLE 1 HILSA SHAD TABLE 23: SUMMARY TABLE FOR PRINCIPLE 2 HILSA TABLE 24: SUMMARY TABLE FOR PRINCIPLE 3 HILSA TABLE 25: AVERAGE SCORES BY PRINCIPLES HILSA TABLE 26: SUMMARY ASSESSMENT FOR ALL PRINCIPLES AND INDICATORS HILSA TABLE 27: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ii

6 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Figures FIGURE 1: SUMMARY SCORES FOR INDIAN MACKEREL... VIII FIGURE 2: SUMMARY SCORES FOR HILSA SHAD... X FIGURE 3: INDIAN MACKEREL, RASTRELLIGER KANAGURTA FIGURE 4: HILSA SHAD, TENUALOSA ILISHA Boxes BOX 1: INCREASE MESH SIZES FOR PURSE SEINE (SABANG, INDONESIA) AND BOTTOM OTTER TRAWLING FISHERIES (MYANMAR) BOX 2: PROTECTED SPAWNING GROUNDS IN INSHORE MALACCA STRAIT, THAILAND BOX 3: UK REGISTRATION OF BUYERS AND SELLERS BOX 4: MALDIVES BAN ON SHARK FISHING BOX 5: ACEH PROVINCE COMMUNITY BASED BATHYMETRIC SURVEY BOX 6: THE PANCHAYATS AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN TAMIL NADU, INDIA BOX 7: PANGLIMA LAOT, ACEH BOX 8: SUBSIDIES IN TAMIL NADU, INDIA BOX 9: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS IN INDONESIA BOX 10: PILOT COMMUNITY BASED MCS IN THAILAND BOX 11: HILSA HARVEST CONTROL RULES AND TOOLS IN BANGLADESH BOX 12: CONSULTATION, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HILSA MANAGEMENT IN BANGLADESH BOX 13: INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE HILSA FISHING IN BANGLADESH BOX 14: DECISION MAKING PROCESSES IN BANGLADESH BOX 15: DECISION MAKING PROCESSES IN BANGLADESH BOX 16: SPATIAL ECOSYSTEM AND POPULATION DYNAMICS MODEL iii

7 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Acronyms used APFIC Asia Pacific Fisheries Commission ARHMC Aquatic Resources Health Management Centre BDO Block Development Officer (India) BFRI Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute BMSY Biomass that can support harvest of the Maximum Sustainable Yield BoB Bay of Bengal BOBLME Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem CBFM Community Based Fisheries Management CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries CHARM Coastal Habitats and Aquatic Resources Management (project) CIFRI Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute (India) CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Cm Centimeters COFI Committee on Fisheries CPUE Catch per Unit of Effort DGN Drift gillnets (India) DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid DoF Department of Fisheries (Bangladesh) E Exploitation rate EAF Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries EC European Commission EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected FAD Fish aggregating device FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FMP Fisheries Management Plan ft Feet GEF Global Environment Facility GPS Geographical Positioning System GT Gross Tons HFMAP Hilsa Fishery Management Action Plan hp Horse Power ICM Integrated Coastal Management ID Indonesia IN India INR Rupees (India( IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IPOA International Plan of Action IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (fishing) iv

8 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal kg km L F LK LL LME M M&E MCS mm MM MPA MSBN MSC MSY MTRB MY NPOA NTRB OFRP P PI PSA RBF RFB RFMO RPOA Rs SAP SICA t TAC TED TH Tk TURF UK UNEP Kilogrammes Kilometer Length Frequency Sri Lanka Longlines (India) Large Marine Ecosystem Meters Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Millimeter Myanmar Marine Protected Area Marine Set Bag Nets (India) Marine Stewardship Council Maximum Sustainable Yield Motorized Traditional Boats (Sri Lanka) Malaysia National Plan of Action Non motorized Traditional Boats (Sri Lanka). Out board engine Fiberglass Reinforced plastic Boats (Sri Lanka) Principle (MSC) Performance Indicator Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Risk Based Framework Regional Fisheries Body Regional Fisheries Management Organization Regional Plan of Action Rupees (Sri Lanka) Strategic Action Plan Scale Intensity and Consequence Analysis Tonnes Total Allowable Catch Turtle Exclusion Device Thailand Taka (Bangladesh) Territorial use rights in fisheries United Kingdom United Nations Environment Program v

9 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal ABSTRACT This report presents an assessment of Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME). The report assesses: Indian mackerel fisheries in Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu in India, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia; and hilsa shad fisheries in West Bengal in India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. The assessments were made on behalf of the BOBLME project, following visits to all eight countries, with the fishery in each country scored and benchmarked against three main issues, or Principles related to: the status of the stocks; the impacts of the fisheries on the ecosystem; and the management frameworks in place. Under each of these three Principles, a number of specific indicators are used to determine whether performance can be viewed as weak (scored as 0 and red), intermediate (scored as 1 and amber), or good (scored as 2 and green). The use of a wide range of indicators, and a simple color coded scoring system, allows for easy identification of both the strengths and the weaknesses in the status, impacts and management of these fisheries. It also allows for an objective basis on which to compare performance between countries. This report includes Appendices which present all individual country assessments, while the main text provides a regional summary of performance for the two main species under examination. In both cases, examples of best practice are highlighted, along with key weaknesses and recommendations for improved performance. DISCLAIMER The views contained in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent those of the BOBLME project coordination unit, or of any of the administrations in the Bay of Bengal countries. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The contents of this report are based on a literature review, and on visits made by the consultants to all eight countries within the Bay of Bengal region. The consultants would like to formally acknowledge the important contribution, both technically and logistically, made by the BOBLME coordination unit and by the BOBLME project national coordinators. We would also like to thank all those who so readily gave up their time to meet with the consulting team during the country visits, and who provided information which was critically important in completing the assessments presented in this report. vi

10 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background, objectives and methodology of the study Fish are a critical component of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME) with fisheries landing around four million tonnes a year; they form both an important source of nutrition and income for the inhabitants of its bordering countries. Two species Indian mackerel and hilsa shad account for around 577,826 and 200,000 tonnes respectively 1 and are of particular interest as their single stocks are shared throughout the Bay of Bengal. Maldives, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia are working together through the five year, US$31 million BOBLME Project. One of the subcomponents (2.3) is to Devise regional fishery assessments and management plans for hilsa shad, Indian mackerel and sharks. This study is a first step in this process (sharks are being covered separately) and acts to benchmark the Indian mackerel and hilsa fisheries, providing a starting point for the development of regional Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs). This study has used a benchmarking standard developed by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). This methodology analyses the fisheries against three Principles ; stock status (Principle 1), ecosystem impacts (Principle 2) and fisheries management (Principle 3). Within these there are a number of performance indicators with associated scoring guide posts against which the performance of the fishery can be judged. It should be emphasized that this is not a formal MSC assessment, but the MSC framework is used as a comprehensive assessment method on which to base our analyses and subsequent recommendations. Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) The Indian mackerel is a productive small pelagic species found throughout the Bay of Bengal region. The results of the assessment are summarized below and in Figure 1. Stock status: despite its relative robustness there is evidence for considerable concern over the status of this species as it is over fished throughout much of the region. A Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) suggests that it is particularly vulnerable to purse seines and bottom otter trawlers, and is extensively caught by coastal gillnet fisheries in Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia. There are no reference points used in management of this species and as a result, harvest rules and controls are weak. Ecosystem impacts: the main issue with these fisheries is the poor stock status of other retained species landed together with Indian mackerel, especially in trawl and purse seine fisheries. However very little is discarded and with the exception of bottom trawlers, they have limited impact on habitats. Other issues raised included interactions with sea turtles in bottom trawls and larger mesh gillnets, and sharks in large purse seines. There is also some concern over the trophic effects of such a large fishery. Management: legal and institutional structures are mainly in place. Weaknesses were observed in the continued use of subsidies that serve to increase fishing effort as well as weak fisheries specific objectives, decision making process, research plans, MCS strategies and performance evaluation. Weaknesses were both specific to Indian mackerel management as well as being generally applicable to management of small pelagic species. 1 FAO online landings statistics for 2007 (all Indian Ocean landings for Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia). See vii

11 Figure 1: Summary Scores for Indian mackerel Principle 1 Country Stock status Outcome Reference points Principle 1: Stock status Stock rebuilding if necessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest strategy Harvest control Information and rules and tools monitoring Assessment UoA ID Indian mackerel 0 0 * TH Indian mackerel 0 0 * MY Indian mackerel 0 0 * MM Indian mackerel 0 0 * IN Indian mackerel 1 0 * LK Indian mackerel 2 0 * Principle Retained Retained Retained info / Discards Discards Discards info / ETP ETP info / Habitat Habitat Habitat info / Ecosystem Ecosystem Ecosystem info / ETP status UoA status management monitoring status management monitoring management monitoring status management monitoring status management monitoring ID Purse seine Country Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Retained Discards ETP Habitat Ecosystem ID Btm Otter trawl ID Gill nets TH Purse seine TH Btm Otter trawl MY Purse seine MY Btm Otter trawl MY Gill nets MM Purse seine MM Btm Otter trawl IN High opening bottom trawl IN Gill nets 50 65mm LK Small mesh gillnet LK Beach seine Principle 3 Country Legal customary framework Governance & Policy Consultation, roles & responsibilitie s Principle 3: Governance & Management Long term objectives Fishery specific management Incentives for Fishery specific Decision making Compliance & Research plan sustainable objectives processes enforcement fishing Management performance evaluation UoA ID PS, BOT, GN Ranking TH PS, BOT Good MY PS, BOT, GN Intermediate MM PS, BOT Weak IN BOT, GN Not applicable LK GN, BS viii

12 Hilda shad (Tenualosa ilisha) The hilsa shad is a highly productive migratory species found mainly along the coasts of India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. It migrates into freshwater to spawn and is heavily fished over the marine, brackish and freshwater phases of its life. The results of the assessment are summarized in the table overleaf and described below. Stock status: the hilsa shad is likely to be over exploited throughout the Bay of Bengal, especially during their juvenile phase. There also signs from PSA analyses that overall productivity of this species is dropping, possibly due to the declining volume and quality of water in its main watersheds. As yet no biomass based reference points have been utilized for management of hilsa stocks in the Bay of Bengal and stock reference points need to be agreed in order to base regional harvest control rules and controls. However Bangladesh s Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan demonstrates that science and stakeholder based management regimes can be effective. Ecosystem impacts: the widespread use of small mesh gillnets in all three countries, especially by subsistence fishers in riverine areas, has led to large number of juvenile fish being caught in these fisheries. The larger mesh gears used in the estuarine and marine areas are less of a concern. There are no discards in any of these fisheries. There are also some concerns over the impact of the small mesh fisheries on aquatic biodiversity in rivers and floodplains, and the larger mesh fisheries are also implicated in some catch of sea turtles and cetaceans. There are few habitat issues associated with these fisheries. As with Indian mackerel, there is some concern over the trophic impact of taking such large volumes of fish, especially given this species anadramous life style. Management: the comments made on Indian mackerel are broadly relevant to hilsa. Of special concern is the continued use of subsidies which serve to increase fishing capacity/effort. However unlike Indian mackerel, in some of the hilsa fisheries assessed there are also some positive incentives provided for greater sustainability in the form of social and financial support to reduce the need for fishers to fish for hilsa at particularly important times of the year or in particularly sensitive locations. Performance against the fisheries specific management system displays a rather different picture to the Indian mackerel assessments, primarily because hilsa is such an important fish in economic terms, especially in Bangladesh. Thus there is generally a much greater level of specification of hilsa specific objectives, decision making process, research plans, MCS strategies, and performance evaluation. Performance in Bangladesh is particularly encouraging for most P3 indicators, and many lessons can be learned from this country for wider applicability within the region. Recommendations For the two fisheries, recommendations have been made for the preparation of Regional Fisheries Management Plans, which includes a sub set of eight actions in both cases. In addition to these FMPs are a series of supporting activities to improve gear selectivity, to manage ETP interactions, improve habitat protection and to increase the knowledge of the impact of these fisheries on the wider Bay of Bengal ecosystem. In effect we are proposing that the FMPs are accompanied by activities that provide an ecosystem based approach. The non fisheries specific recommendations are divided into four main elements: (i) policy development, (ii) information support, (iii) fisheries control and (iv) human capacity development. ix

13 Figure 2: Summary scores for hilsa shad Principle 1 Country Stock status Outcome Reference points Principle 1: Stock status Stock rebuilding if necessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Harvest strategy Information and monitoring Assessment UoA MM Hilsa 1 0 * BD Hilsa 0 0 * IN Hilsa 0 0 * Principle 2 Country Retained status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discards status Discards management Discardsinfo / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem management UoA MM Gill nets & river mouth MM Stow net in river MM Purse sea BD Gill nets 40 60mm BD Gill net mm IN Gill nets min 12mm IN Gill nets min 85mm MM Purse seine Ecosystem info / monitoring Principle 3 Country other UoA if necessary Legal customary framework Principle 3: Governance & Management Governance & Policy Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery specific objectives Decisionmaking processes Fishery specific management Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation Ranking MM GN, SN, PS Good BD GN, GN Intermediate IN GN, GN Weak Not applicable x

14 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE BOBLME PROJECT Environment and fisheries in the Bay of Bengal The Bay of Bengal (BOB) is an area of the Indian Ocean, between India on the west and the Malay Peninsula on the east, measuring about 2,090 km long by about 1,600 km wide. The BOB region is defined as comprising the coastal watersheds, islands, reefs, continental shelves and coastal and marine waters of the Maldives, Sri Lanka, the east coast of India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, the west coast of Thailand, the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia, and the Indonesian provinces of Aceh, Riau, and North and West Sumatra. This body of water, measuring approximately 3.3 million km 2 in area, together with the coastal drainage systems, has been identified as one of the world's sixty four Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) sharing a distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically dependent population. (FAO/GEF, 2005) The surface circulation of the BOB is characterized by a large cyclonic gyre, which reverses during the monsoon period (clockwise from January to July, anticlockwise from August to December). The influx of fresh water from the major rivers impacts the salinity and productivity of the coastal and estuarine waters as well as coastal circulation patterns, especially in the north of the Bay. Conversely, during the season of current reversal, saline water invades the estuaries and lower reaches of coastal rivers. Monsoon rain and flood waters have a strong influence on the dynamics of the Bay, producing a warm, low salinity, nutrient and oxygen rich layer to a depth of 100 meters. The BOBLME is considered a moderately productive ( gc/m2 yr) ecosystem. Benthic phytoplankton and zooplankton production is higher in the coastal areas, which receive nutrient rich waters (Preston, 2004). About 400 million people live in the Bay's catchment area, many subsisting at or below the poverty level. The BOB supports numerous coastal fisheries, many of which are of significant socio economic importance to the bordering countries. There are an estimated two million fishers directly employed in the sector. Included amongst these fisheries are coastal demersal, shrimp and small pelagic fisheries, as well as offshore fisheries for tuna and similar species. Catch data for the BOBLME are rather unreliable and fragmented between different data collection areas making accurate estimates problematic, but catches are thought to be around 4 million tonnes a year. Many fish resources in the region are already heavily exploited with adverse impacts on the large number of small scale fishers, their families and communities dependent on these resources for their livelihoods and as a source of food security. The socio economic implications of non sustainable exploitation of fish stocks is further exacerbated by: the illegal incursion of foreign fleets; increased competition and conflicts between artisanal and large scale fisherman; encroachment by nationals into the territorial waters of neighboring countries; and an increase in non sustainable fishing practices (FAO/GEF, 2005). Page 1

15 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal The Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME) Project Maldives, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, have declared their willingness to work together through the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME) Project, and to lay the foundations for a coordinated programme of action designed to improve the lives of the coastal populations through improved regional management of the Bay of Bengal environment and its fisheries. The BOBLME project is a five year project with a total estimated budget of US$ 31 million. It covers five areas, as follows (the sub component relating to this project is in bold): 1. Development of a Strategic Action Plan (SAP) to protect the health of the ecosystem and manage the living resources of the Bay on a sustainable basis to improve the food and livelihood security of the region s coastal population Finalizing an analysis of trans boundary issues Establishing regional management arrangements with sustainable financing The adoption of a SAP by member countries to address the issues identified above 2. Improving Coastal/Marine Natural Resources Management and Sustainable Use Promoting community based management Improving policy harmonization Devising regional fishery assessments and management plans for hilsa shad, Indian mackerel and sharks Demonstrating collaborative critical habitat management in selected areas 3. Better understanding of the BOBLME Environment Improving understanding of the large scale processes and dynamics affecting the BOB Promoting use of Marine Protected Areas to conserve regional fish stocks Improving regional cooperation with regional and global assessment and monitoring programmes 4. Maintenance of Ecosystem Health and Management of Pollution Establishing an effective ecosystem indicator framework Developing a regional approach to identifying and managing important coastal pollution issues 5. Project Management Developing a Monitoring and Evaluation system for the Project Developing a Project information and dissemination system. Page 2

16 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 1.2 INTRODUCTION TO THIS REPORT Objectives In line with the 2010 Annual Regional Work Plan adopted by the Project Steering Committee in March 2010, and the Terms of Reference provided to Poseidon, the objective of this report is to present assessments of Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in each country in the BOBLME region 2. These assessments represent a benchmarking of the fisheries, and are considered an important starting point from which regional management plans can then be developed. The objective of this report is not however to present regional management plans. Hilsa shad and Indian mackerel were selected during the BOBLME project preparation as species to be considered by the BOBLME project based on consultation with, and agreement by, all countries in the region. The motivation for their selection was the perceived benefit and added value of focusing on species not covered by other regional fisheries management organizations (i.e. tuna and tuna like species which are under the remit of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission [IOTC]), but which nevertheless represent shared stocks within the Bay of Bengal. The management of sharks is being addressed under a separate project Methodology The assessments presented in this report were made based on a literature review, and visits to all eight countries in the BOB region. These visits were necessarily short in duration 3 given the budget provided, and the assessments presented in this report therefore represent a rapid appraisal of the fisheries. Due to the relative abundance of the two species and their differing commercial importance in the countries in the region, assessments were made as follows: 4 Hilsa shad: West Bengal (India), Bangladesh, and Myanmar Indian mackerel: Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu (India), Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. The assessment of each fishery in each country is based on an assessment of performance against three main issues, or Principles : The fishery should be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery should be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. This principle is thus related most strongly to the status of the stocks; 2 An assessment of shark fisheries under sub component 2.3 is to be completed under a separate consultancy contract and does not form part of this output. 3 Typically 6 8 man days per country. 4 A visit was also made to Maldives to consider potential areas of support by the BOBLME project under subcomponent 2.3 as there is no commercial fishery for either Indian mackerel of hilsa shad in the Maldives. While an Indian mackerel fishery is present in Bangladesh, an assessment was not completed but some information is provided on the fishery in this report. Page 3

17 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. This principle is thus related most strongly to the impacts of the fisheries on the ecosystem; and The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. This principle is thus related most strongly to the governance and management frameworks in place. Under each of these three Principles, the fisheries are scored based on a number of specific indicators used to assess performance. These three main Principles are the three principles of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) eco labeling certification scheme (see Appendix B), and the indicators are those specified by the MSC and used when assessing fisheries against the MSC standard. It is important to note however that the assessments presented in this report are NOT MSC (pre )assessments. The MSC framework is used only because it serves as a useful tool for assessing key strengths and weaknesses in the fisheries under review. 5 The MSC indicators under each main Principle are retained in our analysis, but rather than complete a full scoring for each indicator in accordance with the complex Fisheries Assessment Methodology used in MSC assessments, we have adapted and simplified the scoring process, and have determined for each indicator whether performance can be viewed as weak (scored as 0 and red), intermediate (scored as 1 and amber), or good (scored as 2 and green) 6. The use of a wide range of indicators, and a simple color coded scoring system, allows for easy identification of both the strengths and the weaknesses in the status, impacts and management of these fisheries. The consultants have also completed a harmonization process across the different assessments to ensure that where performance for an indicator is considered equivalent in more than one fishery, the indicators are attributed with the same color/score. This allows for an objective basis on which to compare performance between countries. The assessment process is further informed by the completion of performance reviews for what we call units of assessment. Thus, and for example, within a particular country where Indian mackerel may be targeted, there may be a number of distinct fishing methods/gears and practices used to catch the fish. A separate assessment has been completed for each unit of assessment because of the potential differences in the management regulations, harvest strategies, and the ecosystems impacts, of particular fisheries. For example, the regulation and impacts of an artisanal gillnet fishery for Indian mackerel in a particular country may be very different to the regulation and impacts of an offshore trawl fishery for Indian mackerel. In the country reports provided in the Appendices, we therefore first define the unit of assessment, and then undertake a performance review and scoring of each unit of assessment individually. Sections 2 and 3 of this report also provide a complete 5 The MSC is a non profit organisation ( The MSC framework and standards for assessing fisheries have been developed over many years through extensive global consultation with stakeholders, and are compliant with the FAO guidelines on eco labeling. 6 Very broadly, a green/2 score can be considered equivalent to >80 (pass) in the MSC scoring system, amber/1 equivalent to (conditional pass), and a red/0 equivalent to <60 (a fail). Page 4

18 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal list of all the units of assessment which have been scored for both hilsa and Indian mackerel respectively. The Principles and related performance indicators (PIs) used in the assessments are presented in the three tables below (Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3). For each indicator, text is provided in the right hand column of each table to show the key issues examined when assessing/scoring performance. Table 1: Indicators associated with Principle 1 (stock status) used to assess Indian mackerel and hilsa fisheries Indicator Number Indicator title Issues considered within indicator Principle 1: Stock Status Stock Status Is the stock is at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing? How likely is it that this is the case? Reference points Are limit and target reference points appropriate for the stock? Are any limit reference points set above the level at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity, and are they precautionary? Any target reference points (such that the stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent or outcome)? Stock rebuilding Where the stock is depleted, is there evidence of stock rebuilding? How likely are strategies to succeed, and how long will rebuilding take? Harvest control strategy Harvest control tools and rules Information and monitoring Assessment of stock status Is there is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place? How likely is the harvest strategy to work? Is the harvest strategy working together with objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points? Is there monitoring in place to determine the effectiveness of the strategy, and is it working? Is the strategy periodically reviewed and updated? Are there well defined and effective harvest control rules in place? To what extent are they consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached? Is there evidence to indicate that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules? What level of relevant information related to stock structure, stock productivity and fleet composition is available to support the harvest strategy? To what extent are stock abundance and fishery removals monitored? Is there an adequate assessment of the stock status? Is the assessment appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule, and is it evaluating stock status relative to reference points? To what extent is the assessment considered robust? Does it take into account uncertainty? Is it peer reviewed? Page 5

19 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 2: Principle 2 (ecosystems impacts) indicators used to assess Indian mackerel & hilsa fisheries Indicator Number Indicator title Issues considered within indicator Principle 2: Ecosystem Impacts Retained species status/outcome Does the fishery pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species? How likely is it that the main retained species are within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits are there are measures / strategies in place to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species (and how likely are such measures/strategies to be successful)? Retained species management Retained species information and monitoring Discarded species status/outcome Discarded species management Discarded species information and monitoring Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species status/outcome ETP species management ETP species information and monitoring Critical habitat status/outcome Critical habitat management To what extent is there is a partial or comprehensive strategy or set of measures in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species? And to what extent is there evidence available to show that it is successful and achieving its objective? To what extent is information on the nature and extent of retained species adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species? Is such information qualitative, or quantitative, and how certain can we be of it? Is the information sufficient to enable to specification of strategy, and how complete a strategy? Does information cover all or only some retained species? As for retained species in 2.1.1, but for discarded species As for retained species in 2.1.2, but for discarded species As for retained species in 2.1.3, but for discarded species As for retained species in 2.1.1, but for ETP species e.g. the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species. In addition, does the fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. As for retained species in 2.1.2, but for ETP species As for retained species in 2.1.3, but for ETP species As for retained species in 2.1.1, but for habitats such as corals, seagrass benthic environments, etc. e.g. The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function. As for retained species in 2.1.2, but for habitats Page 6

20 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Indicator Indicator title Number Critical habitat information and monitoring Ecosystem status/outcome Ecosystem management Ecosystem information and monitoring Issues considered within indicator As for retained species in 2.1.3, but for habitats How likely is it that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function, and is there evidence to support a particular view? As for retained species in 2.1.2, but for ecosystem status Is there is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem? To what extent is there information to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem? Are the main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements just inferred or fully investigated? To what extent are the impacts of the fishery on target, discard, retained and ETP species and habitats are identified and the main functions of these components in the ecosystem understood? Are sufficient data collected to detect any increase in risk level, and/or to develop a strategy? Table 3: Indicators associated with Principle 3 (management frameworks) used to assess Indian mackerel and hilsa fisheries Indicator Number Indicator title Issues considered within indicator Principle 3: Management framework Legal and/or customary framework Consultation roles and responsibilities Long term objectives Does the management system exist within an appropriate and effective legal and/or customary framework? How capable is it of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with Principles 1 and 2? To what extent does it observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood? e.g. implicitly, is it required to do so in law? Does it incorporate an appropriate dispute resolution framework, and how transparent is any such mechanism? How open to interested and affected parties is the management system and how effective are consultation processes? To what extent are the roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals who are involved in the management process clear, understood and/or implicitly/explicitly defined, for/by all relevant parties? Does the management policy have clear long term objectives to guide decision making that are consistent with the principles of sustainability and the precautionary approach, and how implicit/explicit, and required, are such objectives? Incentives for Does the management system provide economic and social 7 Indicators to relate to the overall governance and policy framework in place. Indicators to relate to the fishery specific management system i.e. specific management systems for Indian mackerel and hilsa shad. Page 7

21 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Indicator Number Indicator title sustainable fishing Fishery specific objectives Decision making processes Compliance and enforcement Issues considered within indicator incentives for sustainable fishing, and avoid subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing? Is there any review of the impacts of such incentives/subsidies on sustainability? To what extent does the fishery have clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by Principles 1 and 2? Are such objectives implicit or explicit, and are they measurable in the short and long term? Does the fishery specific management system include effective decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives? Are such processes informal, or formally established? Do they respond to all or just some issues? And does decision making enable responses to issues to be made in a transparent and timely manner? How, if at all, are decisions which are taken justified and reported to stakeholders? Do monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery s management measures are enforced and complied with? How comprehensive and effective are MCS systems? Are sanctions applied, and are they sufficient to act as a deterrent? What sort of evidence is there to determine whether fishers are compliant, and how compliant are they thought to be? Is there evidence of any systematic non compliance? Research plan Does the fishery have a research plan that addresses the information needs of management? Is research available to inform management, and to what extent does it do so in a timely and reliable manner? To what extent are research results made available to interested parties in a timely manner? Monitoring and management performance evaluation Is there a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery specific management system against its objective? Is there is effective and timely review of the fishery specific management system? Does the fishery have in place mechanisms to evaluate some or all parts of the management system, and is it subject to occasional, periodic or regular review, and is any such review internal or external? One other critical aspect of the assessment process needs to be mentioned, and relates to the scoring of some indicators where data may not be available on which to determine a score. Due to a desire to ensure that developing country fisheries (where data may often be lacking) can also engage with the MSC certification process, a Risk Based Framework (RBF) has been developed by the MSC and can be used to evaluate and score some outcome performance indicators when data deficiency is encountered. The RBF includes two methods for assessing the risk to each of the ecological components from activities associated with the fishery under assessment. The first is a system based on expert judgment (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis SICA), which is a qualitative analysis which aims to identify which activities lead to a significant impact on any species, habitat or ecosystem. The SICA operates as a screening tool; a worst case approach that is Page 8

22 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal used to measure the impacts of a range of activities on particular scoring elements. The second is a semi quantitative analysis to assess potential risk (Productivity Susceptibility Analysis PSA). The PSA approach examines attributes of each species that contribute to or reflect its productivity or susceptibility, in order to provide a relative measure of the risk to the scoring element from fishing activities. Given that in practice most SICA assessments are deliberately weighted to conclude high risk (given the low level of information), and indeed are not on their own sufficient for use to assess the target stock (Principle 1), the PSA analysis forms a more useful and insightful tool for use during this assessment. Under the PSA methodology, productivity is determined according to species growth and maturity characteristics, trophic level and fecundity 8. The productivity attributes and scores as defined by MSC methodology are presented in Table 4. Generally speaking quicker growing, fast maturing, low trophic level smaller species are more productive than slower growing species with large maximum size and age, which are typically high trophic level are deemed to be low productivity. Low productivity species are potentially easier to over exploit so fisheries for these stocks (all other things being equal) are higher risk. However in order to finally determine the level of risk, productivity scores must be combined with information about the susceptibility to capture. Table 4: Productivity attributes and scores Productivity attribute Low productivity Medium productivity High productivity (high risk) (medium risk) (Low risk) Average age at maturity >15 years 5 15 years <5 years Average maximum age >25 years years <10 years Fecundity <100 eggs / yr ,000 eggs / yr >20,000 eggs / year Average maximum size >300 cm cm <100 cm Average size at maturity >200 cm cm <40 cm Reproductive strategy Live bearer Demersal egg layer Broadcast spawner Trophic level > <2.75 Source: MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology The susceptibility is assessed according to the overlap of the fishing area compared with the species range (geographical spread and depth / habitat overlap), the probability of capture if the fishing gear is encountered (i.e. species size v mesh size) and the likelihood of post capture survival. The susceptibility attributes and scores as defined by MSC methodology are presented in Table 5. When considering the risk based scores as target species (i.e. under P1) it is important to recognize that the area overlap considerations are for all fishing activity on the stock, not just the vessels belonging to the unit of assessment. It is also the case when considering the likelihood of post capture survival which is only really of any relevance to discarded species. Retained species obviously do not survive post capture. 8 This information can be found for most finfish (not shellfish) species from the Fishbase on line database. Page 9

23 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 5: Susceptibility attributes and scores Susceptibility attribute Low susceptibility Medium susceptibility High susceptibility (low risk) (medium risk) (High risk) Availability overlap of species range with fishery <10% overlap 10 30% overlap >30% overlap Encounterability Habitat and depth check Low overlap with fishing gear Medium overlap with fishing gear High overlap with fishing gear Selectivity (varies per gear type) < mesh size, or >5m in length 1 2 times mesh size, or 4 5m in length >2 times mesh size or up to 4m in length Post capture mortality Evidence of post capture release and survival Released alive Retained spp. or majority dead when released Source: MSC Fisheries Assessment Methodology In the context of the assessments for Indian mackerel and hilsa shad, the PSA has been used to determine an appropriate score for the stock status of these target species. The PSA methodology has also been used for assessing stock status of retained species, where applicable Report Structure Following this introductory section (Section 1), this report has three main sections. Section 2 provides a regional synthesis of the findings with regards to the assessment of Indian mackerel fisheries. Section 3 provides a regional synthesis of the findings with regards to the assessment of Hilsa shad fisheries. In both Sections 2 and 3, we first provide an overview in terms of: The biology of the fish species (including a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis); The main fleets and gears exploiting the species and the units of assessment that have been considered; and The current levels of effort, catches, and socio economic importance of the fisheries. Each section then presents the key findings of the assessments, for each of the three main Principles (stocks, ecosystem impacts, and management frameworks) and the performance indicators related to each Principle. The text draws out some common threads across the assessments, presents some key weaknesses and key strengths, and refers to the individual assessments to provide particular examples to illustrate key points. A final section of the report (Section 4) draws together some key recommendations for improvements in performance, and suggests how the BOBLME project might support such improvements over the coming years. The main text of this report is based on greater detail provided in eight country Appendices. Other Appendices provide information on references used, and on the MSC Principles and Criteria. Page 10

24 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 2 REGIONAL SYNTHESIS INDIAN MACKEREL 2.1 OVERVIEW Biology of Indian mackerel The Indian mackerel, Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier) is a pelagic shoaling scombroid fish widely distributed in the Indo West Pacific region (see Fishbase for distribution map). It is a neritic species (inhabiting the ocean waters between the low tide mark and a depth 200 m) and occurs in areas where surface water temperatures are at least 17 C. Adults occur in coastal bays, harbors and deep lagoons, usually in some turbid plankton rich waters. Figure 3: Indian mackerel, Rastrelliger kanagurta Source: FAO, 1983 Juveniles feed on phytoplankton (diatoms) and small zooplankton (cladocerans, ostracods and larval polychaetes). With growth dietary habits change to preying primarily on macroplankton such as larval shrimps and fish. Indian mackerel reach a size of 18 cm within six months and 22 cm within the first year. It is reproductively active at size of 18 cm for males and 19 cm for females. Longevity is believed to be at least 4 years. Indian mackerel shoal by size moving in semicircular or arrow head formations with a speed of 8 10 mph. They scatter, when pursued by seerfish but, when the shoals are chased by sharks or porpoises, the mackerel submerge with the head downwards into a compact mass. Indian mackerel is a migratory species, however only limited information is available on its migration pattern (Jayasankar et al, 2004). It is understood that pelagic fishes migrate for their ecological demand of spawning and feeding habits to the optimum environmental conditions on current, water temperature, salinity, chlorophyll and prey. It is thought that adult Indian mackerel migrate from coastal waters for the purpose of spawning. Spawning occurs in several batches with eggs fertilized externally. Both eggs and larvae are pelagic (Collette, 1986). Page 11

25 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Details of species migration provide important information for stock identification and shared stock of pelagic fishes. Reproductive isolation between fish stocks may arise by homing to different spawning areas or by hydrographic features which reduce or prevent migration between areas. Menezes et al. (1993) studied the genetic variation between Indian mackerel populations on the West and East coast of India and the Andaman Sea. They found some genetic variance between the populations, as well as differences in many biological and fisheries characteristics. However, the information on migration patterns of Indian mackerel in this region remains fragmentary and inadequate for the purpose of managing the fishery. Tagging experiments of four small pelagic species, including Indian mackerel, have been undertaken by the Marine Fishery Resources Development and Management Department of SEAFDEC since 2007 and continued until end of In the Andaman Sea, tagging operations were conducted in Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand, with a total of 11,351 tails of fish (including 4,310 R. kanagurta) tagged and released in 2008 and The recovery data are planned to be used for analysis of migration and other biological parameters (SEAFDEC, 2009). Indian mackerel is a very important species in many parts of its range. Catches are usually recorded as Rastrelliger spp. or combined with R. brachysoma. Common names for R. kanagurta throughout the BOBLME area include the following: India: Ayala, Ayila (Malayalam), Ailai, Augalai (Tamil), Bangada (Canarese), Indian mackerel, Kaula Gedar (Marathi), Kanagurta (Telugu), Kanangeluthi (Tamil), Kannangadatha (Telugu), Kumla (Tamil), Karan Kita (Oriya), Oibia Gedar (Sindhi), Bangadi (Hindi). Indonesia: Banjar, Kembung, Kembunglelaki. Malaysia: Kedah, Kembong, Kuala Muda. Myanmar: Indian mackerel. Sri Lanka: Ailai (Tamil), Indian mackerel, Karung Kuluttan, Kumbala (Tamil), Kumbalava, Maha Kara Bolla (Sinhalese). Thailand: Pla Long, Pla Thu, Tu. A Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) was undertaken utilizing the risk based approach to fisheries assessment developed by the MSC. The PSA approach examines attributes of each species that contribute to or reflect its productivity or susceptibility, in order to provide a relative measure of the risk to the scoring element from fishing activities. The seven productivity attributes are specific to the species and scores will be consistent across a single stock, regardless of which countries or gears are targeting the fishery. Based on current evidence, for the purpose of the PSA, the Indian mackerel present in the BOBLME area is considered to be a single stock. The selectivity analysis considers attributes that are specific to the gear that is targeting the fishery its overlap with the species range, encounterability across the species habitats and selectivity of the gear. Indian mackerel scores highly on six productivity attributes (i.e is a highly productive species) and intermediately for trophic level (Table 6). It has a minimum population doubling time of less than 15 months. Overall in terms of its physiology and reproductive strategy it can be considered a highly productive species with a high resilience and low vulnerability. Page 12

26 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 6: Indian mackerel key productivity attributes Attribute Indian mackerel Risk level Av. age at maturity 6 months 1 year Low Av. maximum age 4 years Low Fecundity 22,000 94,000 Low Av. maximum size 35 cm Low Av. size at maturity cm Low Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner Low Trophic level 3.19 Medium Source: FishBase The susceptibility of Indian mackerel to different gears deployed within the BOBLME area are presented in Table 7; combined with the productivity, the overall risk from the fisheries is determined. Table 7: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for Indian mackerel Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Country Indonesia Malaysia Thailand Myanmar India (Tamil Nadu) Sri Lanka Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post capture mortality Gear Purse seine High <60 Btm Otter trawl High <60 Gill nets Low >80 Purse seine High <60 Btm Otter trawl High <60 Gill nets Low >80 Purse seine High <60 Btm Otter trawl High <60 Purse seine High <60 Btm Otter trawl High <60 Gill nets (40 65mm) Low >80 Btm Otter trawl Low >80 Gill nets (<9cm) Low >80 Beach seine Low >80 Total Selectivity PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Availability: overlap of species range with fishery Encounterability: overlap of gear with fish distribution in the water column Selectivity: selectivity of gear and likelihood of capture Post capture mortality: whether fish is retained (or dead if released) Source: Poseidon Indian mackerel is highly susceptible to being caught by the purse seine and trawl fleets operating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar. Vessels deploying these gears are likely to overlap > 30% of the natural distribution of Indian mackerel, as well as having a high Page 13

27 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal overlap with the habitat and depth range inhabited by this species. Due to the mesh sizes of these gears, they have a low selectivity in that most fish encountered will be captured. From a stock status perspective both purse seine and trawl fisheries are considered to be high risk to Indian mackerel. The gillnet fisheries in Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Sri Lanka and the beach seine fishery in Sri Lanka are, however, predominately carried out in the coastal areas and so have a lower risk score based on availability and encounterability attributes. While selectivity scores poorly due to the small mesh sizes compared to the fish length, overall the impact of this fishery on the stock is considered low risk Description of main fleets and gears, and units of assessment The main fleets and gears catching Indian mackerel in countries/areas in the BOB which have been examined by the consultants, are described in the table below (Table 8), along with the units of assessment for which performance has been assessed. As can be seen from the table, the eastern BOBLME countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar) have targeted purse seine fisheries for small pelagics, including Indian mackerel, with other gears of bottom otter trawling and gill nets taking this species as a retained bycatch, while the western BOBLME countries (India and Sri Lanka) catch Indian mackerel as part of their small scale coastal gill net and beach seine fisheries. Table 8: Main fleets/gears targeting Indian mackerel, and units of assessment Country/ Area Description of main fleets/gears catching Indian mackerel Sri Lanka Small mesh (2 to 4.5 cm) gillnets deployed from hp out board engine fiberglass reinforced plastic boats (OFRP); motorized traditional boats ((MTRB); & non motorized traditional boats (NTRB). Indian mackerel is mainly landed as a minor bycatch (1 3% of total catches) with other small pelagic species being the target species, primarily the spotted sardinella (Amblygaster sirm). Operating mainly over the continental shelf out to 25 km from the shore Beach seines (< 1 cm mesh) up to a kilometer in length, and manually hauled. Seines consist of an encircling net with an additional cod end. The net has a large number of small (c. 1 kg) weights to keep the footrope on the bottom. Catches average around kg per haul, mostly of sardines (Sardinella spp.), anchovies (Stolephorus spp.) and silver bellies (Leiognathus spp.) Indian mackerel represents a small bycatch (3 7% of catches). Tamil Nadu Gillnets targeting Indian mackerel, mesh size of (India) 50 65mm, around 5m deep and up to a kilometer in length. They are surface set and tend to operate in shallower water (<50 m depth). The vessels fishing gillnets are mainly outboard (8.5 11hp) powered fiberglass skiffs, fishing 8 10nm offshore. Units of assessment considered in this report Small mesh gillnet fishery (mesh size 2 4.5cm / inches), used by fiberglass reinforced plastic boats (OFRP), motorized traditional boats ((MTRB), & non motorized traditional boats (NTRB) throughout Sri Lanka; and Beach seines (mesh size <1cm) throughout Sri Lanka. Small mesh (50 65 mm), surface set gillnet fishery in Tamil Nadu prosecuted by motorized (outboard and inboard) vessels with Indian mackerel as the main retained species; and Page 14

28 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Country/ Area Description of main fleets/gears catching Indian mackerel Trawl vessels targeting shrimp, demersal fish and cephalopods, using a high opening trawl net with a headline height of around 20 30m. Cod end mesh should be a minimum of 35mm, but 8 10mm is often used. Trawlers along the Coromandel Coast are restricted to a maximum length of 50ft, and a maximum engine size of 110 hp, and are not allowed to fish within 3 nautical miles of the shore. Ring seines using traditional gillnets as described above, targeting Indian mackerel. As purse seine type gear is illegal in India, there is little detail on the scale and nature of these fisheries, especially on the east coast of India where they are only just being introduced, but their use is said to be increasing. Bangladesh Catches are thought to be made primarily by drift gillnets (DGN), longlines (LL), and marine set bag nets (MSBN) in the coastal artisanal fishery, using mechanized and non mechanized boats. Industrial trawlers (shrimp, fish, and cephalopod) also catch some mackerel. The relative importance of the different gear types in contributing to total Indian mackerel catches is thought to be approximately: drift gillnets (95%), longlines (1%), marine set bag nets (2%) and industrial trawl nets (2%). Indian mackerel is mostly caught as a by catch of the hilsa fishery, but only in very small quantities. Myanmar The purse seine fishery mainly harvests small mackerels and sardine species and are operated in a traditional manner, without fish aggregating devices. Most purse seiners have a skipper with expertise in seeking out fish schools relative to the fish lures, and at night, free school scouting purse nets using lights. Otter bottom trawl nets are the main gear for demersal finfish and penaeid prawns and the trawl fisheries contributed > 40% to marine landings in Myanmar. Indian mackerel is caught as a bycatch in this fishery. Units of assessment considered in this report High opening bottom trawl fisheries in Tamil Nadu targeting shrimp, finfish or cephalopods with a retained and commercially important bycatch of Indian mackerel. None Purse seine vessels with 1 inch mesh size targeting small pelagic species with Indian mackerel landed as a minor bycatch species. Bottom otter trawl fishery with 1.5 inch mesh size targeting shrimp and 2.5 inch mesh size targeting demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a minor bycatch species. Page 15

29 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Country/ Area Description of main fleets/gears catching Indian mackerel Units of assessment considered in this report Thailand 74% by volume taken by purse seiners, 25% from trawlers and 1% by gill netters. The purse seiners use a net Purse seine vessels targeting small pelagic species within Thailand EEZ waters with nets of mesh size 1 inch. length 700 1,300m, depth m with mesh size 25mm operated with 1 3 day/trip, about 24 day/month. The vessels range in length from 14 to 27m and use engines of 250 to 300hp. Bottom otter trawl vessels targeting demersal finfish and shrimps, taking Indian mackerel as a bycatch, operating within Thailand EEZ waters with nets of mesh size 1 inch Malaysia Landings by volume are predominately from the purse seiners (56% of west coast landings), trawlers (42%) and only a very small amount (1%) from drift/gill netter Purse seine vessels with 1 inch (25mm) mesh size targeting small pelagic with Indian mackerel as one of these target species and those targeting tunas that catch Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. Bottom otter trawl fishery with 1 inch (25mm) mesh size targeting shrimp and demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. Set gillnet fishery with mesh sizes ranging from 1 inch (25mm) upwards targeting demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. Indonesia There are four main targeted fisheries for large pelagic species (namely tunas), demersal species, shrimp and small pelagic species. Indian mackerel are caught as part of the mixed small pelagic fishery which also lands a number of other species including Indo Purse seine 5 30GT vessels with 1 inch mesh size targeting small pelagic with Indian mackerel as one of the target species and purse seine >30GT vessels with 1 inch mesh size targeting tunas and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. Pacific mackerel and juvenile tunas. Bottom otter trawl fishery with 1 Indian mackerel are predominately targeted by 5 30GT purse seiners; although they are also taken as bycatch inch mesh size targeting shrimp and demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. in the >30GT purse seine fishery targeting tuna, the demersal trawl fishery targeting shrimp and the gill net fisheries targeting demersal finfish. Set gillnet fishery with mesh sizes ranging from 1 to 8 inches targeting demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. Source: Poseidon. NB Indian mackerel is not caught commercially in the Maldives in any meaningful volumes (see Appendix G) Page 16

30 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Current effort, catches (volume & value) and socio economic importance Summary information on vessel numbers catching Indian mackerel, catches (volumes and estimated values, and CPUE trends), and main markets, is provided in the table below (Table 9). The table shows that in Sri Lanka, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Thailand and Indonesia catches of Indian mackerel are low (compared to total national landings), and that the socioeconomic importance of Indian mackerel fisheries may be small in terms of total employment and income generation. Landings into Malaysia are significantly higher than any of the other BOBLME countries, at 140,000 tonnes in Small pelagics such as Indian mackerel are generally low cost to consumers, and have high micro nutrient content as well as providing an important source of animal protein. They thus serve an important socio economic role in terms of food security. Table 9: Vessel numbers, catches, and markets for Indian mackerel Country/ Area Sri Lanka Tamil Nadu (India) Estimated vessel numbers (trends) Not known (but increasing). 975 beach seines in 2009 Estimated catch volumes (trends) 1,000 2,000 tonnes per year (trends not known for Indian mackerel but up for small pelagics) Not known 14,430 tonnes/year average (static) Bangladesh Not known 58 tonnes per year Myanmar Not known Volume consumed domestically is not known; 10.5 tonnes exported, 2009 CPUE trends Not known Estimated catch values Rs 86 million / $758,816 (2009) Not known INR 616 million / $15.6 million (2007) Main markets All to domestic markets All to domestic markets Not known Not known Almost all to domestic markets but some exports reported Not known Value of fish consumed domestically is not known; US$8,000 exported, 2009 Domestic and export Page 17

31 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Country/ Area Thailand Estimated vessel numbers (trends) 212 purse seine vessels in 2007 Malaysia 2,978 trawlers, 326 purse seiners and 12,520 gill/drift nets. Estimated catch volumes (trends) Average of 20,000 tonnes per annum over the past 10 years 140,000 tonnes landed in 2008 CPUE trends Estimated at kg/day in 2007 Estimated catch values 34,000 baht per tonne Main markets Domestic and export Not known Not known Domestic and export Indonesia For entire Indonesia: 50 purse seine (>30GT), 10,433 purse seine (5 30GT), 90 trawlers (>30GT), 43,500 gill netters/trawlers/line (5 30GT) Sources: Various, collated by Poseidon over current study Unknown Not known Not known All to domestic markets Page 18

32 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 2.2 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS AND MANAGEMENT The table below (Table 10) provides a summary of the assessment of both stock status/outcome, and harvest strategy/stock management for Indian mackerel in the countries for which assessments have been made. Table 10: Summary table for Principle 1; Indian mackerel Source: Poseidon. ID = Indonesia, TH = Thailand, MY = Malaysia, MM = Myanmar, IN = India, LK = Sri Lanka Indian mackerel is a migratory species and Jayasankar et al (2004) found no genetic differences between three areas on the East and West coasts of India. Such findings along with species characteristics such as planktonic early life stages and the connectivity of the BOBLME region s hydrography, lead many to assume Indian mackerel in the Bay of Bengal is a single stock. To date there has been no region wide research to determine whether this is the case or whether a number of distinct stocks exist. This is an important area of research that will be required to inform the functional unit(s) for regional and co operative management of the resource Stock status/outcome Stock status Where some form of stock assessment has been conducted for Indian mackerel, the status of the stock is identified as being poor. Most of these assessments are based on estimates of catch per unit effort (CPUE). For example, estimates for Thailand suggest that catch levels in the Andaman Sea are 30% over MSY. In Malaysia, where biomass estimates are available from occasional research surveys as well as fisheries dependent population estimates, there are also signs that the resource is being overfished. On the West coast of Peninsula Malaysia, an area totaling nearly 28,000km 2, a pelagic resource of 210,000t was estimated (Hassan et al, 2006), which is 23.8% lower than that estimated in a previous survey conducted in The more favorable scores for India and Sri Lanka should be viewed with caution as no estimates were available and therefore the scores are based on the PSA analysis. Indian catches have been above a 1991 estimate of MSY for many years and so the stock is thought to be overfished. It is only the expected resilience this species shows to overfishing and its reported expansion northwards up India s East coast that leads to an intermediate score. For Sri Lanka, the score derived from PSA analysis gives a low risk score mainly due to the artisanal nature of the fishery that accesses only a small proportion of the resource compared to its range across the Sri Lankan EEZ. Page 19

33 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Overall where some form of stock assessment is available, indications are that the Indian mackerel resource is showing signs of being overfished, but the species shows cyclical population levels and has a short recovery time making recruitment overfishing less likely. The lack of information on stock status currently limits the confidence in any assessment. Reference points Some countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and India report an MSY level, but this is derived from CPUE estimates rather than biomass estimates including predictions for recruitment into the fishery. R. kanagurta populations are known to be cyclical and therefore full reliance on fishery dependent data would mean any such estimate should be treated with caution. For all countries, even those with the potential to use MSY estimates as de facto reference points, no reference points are currently used in the management of the resource. Reference points are important as they are an objective basis on which to make management decisions; if a reference point for fishing mortality, such as F MSY, is exceeded managers know that action may be required and stakeholders can agree in advance what the extent of action should be, e.g. a proportional cut in fishing effort. Stock rebuilding Stock rebuilding is not scored when the RBF is applied. As there is a lack of stock status information across all countries, stock rebuilding is not relevant at this stage Harvest strategy / stock management Performance of harvest strategy Consideration of the harvest strategy explores how management of the fishery works to keep stock levels consistent with reference points. As described above, no formal reference points are currently used by BOBLME countries. For those where MSY is reported, there is no evidence that a harvest strategy has been introduced or amended to achieve MSY. Harvest control rules and tools There are no harvest control rules and tools that are triggered by reference points. Some countries apply more general harvest control rules such as India s season ban on mechanized vessels, which could be expected to benefit Indian mackerel spawning within this period. Indonesia sets TACs and minimum mesh sizes at a national level, but at a provincial level there is no evidence that these are well applied and enforced. Information and monitoring The scoring of information and monitoring considers the various elements that would be required to fully inform management of a particular stock: Page 20

34 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Stock structure (e.g. the distribution and geographical range of the stock, the relationship of the geographical range to the harvest control, and the age, size, sex and genetic structure of the stock); Stock productivity (e.g. could incorporate maturity, growth, natural mortality, density dependent processes, the stock recruit relationship and fecundity); Fleet composition (e.g. effort by gear type/method of capture); Stock abundance (e.g. information relating to absolute or relative abundance indices including recruitment, age size sex and genetic structure of the stock); Fishery removals (e.g. the level, size, age, sex and genetic structure of landings, discards, illegal, unreported, unregulated, recreational, customary and incidental mortality of the target stock by location and method of capture); Other data (such as temperature, weather and other factors which may influence fish populations and fishing). The team s investigations identified that some of the above information was available and, in a number of cases, regularly monitored by countries. For example, Malaysia s statistics on catch composition by gear are consistently well presented and detailed. Similarly some of Indonesia s provincial level statistics can be highly detailed, but the appreciable logistical problems of compiling these, results in a lower resolution at national level. The obvious gap in information and monitoring across all countries is in relation to stock abundance. Scores on information and monitoring for nearly all countries are given as intermediate, in recognition of countries efforts to research the resource and the noticeable improvements in recording fishing activity. However it is evident in every country that more frequent and accurate information through systematic monitoring is required. Assessment With no evidence of stock assessment for Indian mackerel, most countries are inevitably scored as weak. Only Thailand and India achieved an intermediate score. For India this was in recognition of the considerable research into population dynamics and stocks of Indian mackerel, although much of these have been focused on the Arabian Sea stock, which may be separate from that of the Bay of Bengal. In the case of Thailand and Malaysia, a number of population parameters have been calculated for this species, which is a positive step toward stock assessment requirements. These are, however, based on ad hoc research projects rather than regular assessments. Page 21

35 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 2.3 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEMS The table overleaf (Table 11) shows the assessments made for each indicator under Principle 2 across all countries in the region. Page 22

36 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 11: Summary table for Principle 2; Indian mackerel Retained Retained Retained info / Discards Discards Discards info / ETP ETP info / Habitat Habitat Habitat info / Ecosystem Ecosystem Ecosystem info / ETP status UoA status management monitoring status management monitoring management monitoring status management monitoring status management monitoring ID Purse seine Country Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Retained Discards ETP Habitat Ecosystem ID Btm Otter trawl ID Gill nets TH Purse seine TH Btm Otter trawl MY Purse seine MY Btm Otter trawl MY Gill nets MM Purse seine MM Btm Otter trawl IN High opening bottom trawl IN Gill nets 50 65mm LK Small mesh gillnet LK Beach seine Source: Poseidon. ID = Indonesia, TH = Thailand, MY = Malaysia, MM = Myanmar, IN = India, LK = Sri Lanka Page 23

37 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Retained bycatch Status A Productivity and Susceptibility analysis (PSA) has been undertaken for the main retained species in each of the gear types targeting Indian mackerel (Table 12). Table 12: Productivity and Susceptibility analysis (PSA) for main retained species by gear type Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Gear Species Scientific name Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post capture mortality Total PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Beach seines Gill nets Bottom otter trawl Purse seine Indo pacific mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma Med Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis Med Longtail tuna Thunnus tonggol High <60 Frigate tuna Auxis thazard High <60 Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus Med Bullet tuna Auxis rochei High <60 Eastern little tuna Euthynnus affinis High <60 Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares High <60 Round scad Decapterus maruadsi High <60 Hardtail scad Megalaspis cordyla High <60 Anchovy Stolephorus spp High <60 Round scad Decapterus maruadsi High <60 Hardtail scad Megalaspis cordyla High <60 Penaeid shrimp Penaeus monodon Med Penaeid shrimp Penaeus semisulcatus Med Indo pacific mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma Med Squid Loligo spp High <60 Pomphret Pampus argenteus High <60 Snapper Lutjanus bohar High <60 Grouper Epinephelus tauvina High <60 Small carangids Decapterus russelli High <60 Indo pacific mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma Low >80 Seerfish Scomberomorus commerson Low >80 Indo Pacific king mackerel Scomberomorus guttatus Low >80 Small carangids Decapterus russeli Low >80 Sardine species Amblygaster sirm Low >80 Sardine species Sardinella gibbosa Low >80 Sardine species Sardinella albella Low >80 Sardine species Amblygaster sirm Low >80 Pony fish Leiognathus equulus Low >80 Small carangids Decapterus russelli Low >80 Source: Poseidon The purse seine fleet that lands Indian mackerel predominately occurs in the Eastern Bay of Bengal countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar. Two fleet types are in operation throughout the area with larger >30 GT vessels targeting tuna species skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis, Iongtail tuna Thunnus tonggol, frigate tuna Auxis thazard, bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus, bullet tuna Auxis rochei, eastern little tuna Euthynnus affinis and yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacores; and smaller purse seine vessels targeting small pelagic species including Indo pacific mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma, round scad Decapterus Page 24

38 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal maruadsi, hard tail scad Megalaspis cordyla and anchovy Stolephorus species, with a bycatch of juvenile tunas. The PSA analysis indicates that purse seine vessels present a high risk to the majority of small and large pelagic species with the exception of three species assessed as medium risk: Indo Pacific mackerel on account of extremely high productivity and associated low risk; and skipjack and bigeye tuna on account of their distribution throughout tropical and warm temperate waters. Despite other small pelagic species falling within the high risk category, due to the medium trophic levels (>3.25) and high overlap between fishing gear and species range, they all are understood to have a high resilience with a minimum population doubling time of 15 months (Fishbase, 2010). For this reason, overall retained species within the purse seine fleet achieves an intermediate performance level. Indian mackerel is landed as a bycatch by bottom otter trawlers operating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar and India. The species is caught principally by vessels targeting penaeid shrimp Penaeus monodon and P. semisulcatus, squid Loligo species, various demersal fish including pomfret Pampus argenteus, snapper Lutjanus bohar and grouper Epinephelus tauvina and small pelagic such as Indo Pacific mackerel, round scad Decapterus maruadsi, hard tail scad Megalaspis cordyla and small carangids predominately Decapterus russelli These bottom otter trawling gears can operate with high opening nets, so as to capture small pelagic species during the trawling process (as is seen in India); or can capture these species as the nets are hauled through the water column (as seen in Thailand). On account of excellent productivity the shrimp and Indo Pacific mackerel are considered at medium risk, as are squid which has a medium encounterability due to its depth range. All other main retained species are at high risk from trawling due to high trophic status and high overlap with species range, as well as habitat and depth distributions. Due to the diversity and quantities of demersal fish species taken by this gear, together with the fact that a higher proportion of juveniles across all species are likely to be captured as a consequence of the indiscriminate nature of this gear, the overall performance is assessed as weak for all countries. Gill nets operated by smaller vessels in Sri Lanka and India land a mixture of small pelagic including Indo Pacific mackerel, seerfish Scomberomorus commersan and S. guttatus, small carangids and sardine species predominately Amblygaster sirm. Beach seines operated from shore in Sri Lanka also land a mixture of small pelagic including sardine species, namely Sardinella gibbosa, S. albella and A.sirm, small carangids, as well as pony fish Leiognathus equulus. Gill nets and beach seines pose a low risk to these retained species since there is a low overlap of the gears across the species geographic range and low medium encounterability across their habitat and depth distribution. Sardine species, pony fish and small carangids also have good productivity for all attributes with the exception of a medium high risk score for trophic level. However, less is known of the status of these stocks in the Bay of Bengal. In 1999 Devaraj et al indicated that all the states on the east coast of Indian over exploit stocks of scombrids by 80% higher effort than the optimum (MSY), and noted that small meshed gillnets exploit the juvenile seerfish incidentally causing recruitment overfishing. Muthiah et al (2000) suggest that over 80% of seerfish catches from small mesh ( mm) gillnets have not reached maturity. So while retained fish in the gill net and beach seine fisheries in India and Sri Lanka are reasonably resilient to overfishing, it appears that Page 25

39 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal increases in effort need to be considered with caution. Therefore an overall intermediate performance is achieved for these units of assessment. No verification or information on the species associated with the gill net fisheries in Indonesia and Malaysia have been available. It is understood that they are targeting a range of demersal species using bottom set gill nets. Hutomo et al (2009) reports overexploitation of demersal species in the Malacca Straight and Andaman Sea. The overall performance is therefore considered weak. Management All gear types have a weak performance for retained species management, with the exception of purse seine in Thailand and Myanmar and bottom otter trawl in Myanmar, which achieve intermediate performance. In general for all retained species associated with Indian mackerel fisheries, no management plans or species specific measures have been developed nor are there any measures to ensure that these species are maintained within any biologically based limits. None of the main bycatch species, including tuna, have undergone any formal stock assessment in the Bay of Bengal or at a larger scale for the Indian Ocean. In relation to tuna species, which are targeted by the large purse seiners, there are no formal harvest strategies and no current limitation of catches in Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) region. IOTC has begun introducing limits on fishing capacity for some tuna species but the effectiveness of these is uncertain. Most fisheries remain open access. Across all countries there is little in the way of input controls (licenses, effort limitation etc) or output controls (catch limitations, minimum landing sizes etc). There are minimum mesh sizes of 1 inch (25.4mm) across most of the Indonesian, Malaysian and Thai purse seine and bottom otter trawl fisheries. The introduction of increased mesh sizes are being seen in some areas (Box 1). Small mesh sizes are used in gill nets throughout the BOBLME countries and in beach seines in Sri Lanka. Box 1: Increase mesh sizes for purse seine (Sabang, Indonesia) and bottom otter trawling fisheries (Myanmar) A mesh size of 4 inches (102mm) is used for nets deployed around Sabang Island, Indonesia, as part of a voluntary agreement to protect spawning areas in response to the Coral Cay Conservation project that is active in the area. Such voluntary agreements are commendable; however the extent of compliance is unknown or whether any positive effects have been measurable. In Myanmar the minimum mesh size for demersal trawling fleet was recently increased under a Regulation introduced on 1 st September This increased prawn trawl nets to 1.5 inch (38mm) mesh size and finfish trawl nets to 2.5 inches (63.5mm). While these remain small mesh sizes that are likely to continue to land juveniles, it does represent a significant step in the right direction for retained (and target) species management. Page 26

40 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Small mesh sizes have low selectivity and are not appropriate to control the volume or size of fish landed. High proportions of juvenile fish across a diverse range of species are expected to be landed to enter the fish supplement and fish oil trade. This market for trash fish provides an incentive to land all species and sizes caught, which works to minimize discards but is likely to have implications for recruitment and could lead to growth overfishing and possibly ecosystem overfishing. There are no effective management measures in place to control retained species taken throughout the BOBLME area, with two exceptions: increased mesh sizes throughout Myanmar and in one area in Indonesian waters (Box 1), and seasonal protected spawning grounds in inshore Thai waters (Box 2). Box 2: Protected spawning grounds in inshore Malacca Strait, Thailand Thailand operates seasonal closed areas in inshore locations, specifically to protect spawning periods for a combination of small pelagic species. The area of seasonal closure is from the coast out to the white boundary shown in the adjacent figure. The breeding of Indo Pacific mackerel have been protected by temporal closure of the Phang nga Bay during 15 April to 15 June, since Temporal and seasonal closures are important marine resource management strategies which are easily enforced and often accepted by fishers because of their simplicity. Information/monitoring Catch information is available from a number of different sources, including logbooks and sales data. These are more consistently recorded and reported for larger purse seine and trawling fleets, and in particular where produce is exported. Robust data on landings has been provided by Thailand and Malaysia documenting the volume of species and gear type; in India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia total volumes are recorded but there is little detail in relation to gear specific records. In addition, it is likely that there is a significant level of under reporting from smaller vessels landing outside the main ports and this will be particularly true for gill netters, small purse seiners and beach seiners. In Myanmar export data has been available and it is known that the trawling fleet maintains a logbook scheme, although data has not been available from this. The Aceh Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency, Panglima Laots within the Aceh Province and Syiah Kuala University, Banda Aceh worked in collaboration to collate landings data to provide catch profiles by gear type and port of landing and species and port of landing. However, data are not available for species landed by gear types. It is also unknown what levels of data are available for other Provincial areas or whether data collection can continue in Aceh Province due to lack of resources. In general reporting of landings throughout the BOBLME could be improved, and an example of good practice from outside the region is provided in Box 3. Page 27

41 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Box 3: UK Registration of Buyers and Sellers The Registration of Fish Buyers and Sellers and Designation of Fish Auction Sites Regulations came into force in the UK in This implements two EU regulations: Council Regulation (EC) No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy Council Regulation (EC) No. 2847/93 establishing a control system applicable to the Common Fisheries Policy This has had a significant impact on the recording of first hand sales in the fish trade, especially for vessels under 10m. Under these regulations buyers and sellers must be registered and therefore all landings are captured in official statistics that provide an accurate representation of the UK commercial fishing industry. This has worked to provide verifiable landings data as well as reducing the level of any IUU fishing activity Discarded bycatch Status Discards are understood to be minimal for all the fisheries under pre assessment in the BOBLME area. The reasons for low levels of discards in South and Southeast Asian countries are documented by Kelleher (2005) and include: (i) Overfishing, particularly in inshore and coastal waters; (ii) Rising demand due to population increase, rising urban incomes and export of better quality fish; (iii) Poverty leading to consumption of lower value food fish (iv) Product development, e.g. production of surimi and fish oil; and (v) Increased production of fishmeal for animal and fish feeds. All gears and countries therefore have a good performance in relation to discard status, with the exception of Indian high opening bottom trawl which historically has a degree of discarding within the shrimp freezer trawler fleet. Management Given the very low level of discarding in any of the fleets, discard management strategies are largely unnecessary. However, this is a consequence of poor management for the retained species. Efforts should be made to reduce landings of juveniles, but not by discarding them. Any management measures introduced for retained species should give due regard to the associated implications for discarding e.g. if TACs and quotas were implemented without management of high grading, discarding of smaller and/or lesser value fish could occur. The good performance of these fisheries is a result of the lack of requirement for management. This is the case for all units of assessment, except the Indian high opening bottom trawl which has a weak performance in management of discards. Page 28

42 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Information/monitoring While discarding is understood to be low, there are very few records or evidence of discarding behavior from the fisheries under consideration. An observer programme across all gear types and countries (which could be linked with other research e.g. ETP species) would be a sufficient approach to bridge this gap. This is, however, of low priority for these fisheries, given the status of discarding and is likely to only be necessary should formal environmental sustainable certification be sought ETP species interactions Status Most capture fisheries have at least some potential to interact with ETP species. The ETP interaction profile for each gear type varies and is greatly influenced by the manner in which it is utilized. Factors such as frequency of use, duration of deployment, season, and location all play a role in defining a gear types ETP interaction profile. The distribution of ETP species in the Bay of Bengal is reasonably well known. Four main taxa are considered in this assessment: Elasmobranchs, reptiles, marine mammals and seabirds. ETP species likely to interact with fisheries in the Bay of Bengal are listed in Table 13 which has been populated based on vulnerability assessed by IUCN Red List and the range of the species. This table does not represent an exhaustive list of potential ETP species that may interact with Indian mackerel fisheries. Shark species included in the WCPFC Regional Plan of Action include the blue shark, oceanic whitetip shark, mako sharks and thresher sharks. A risk assessment in the Pacific Ocean (Kirby, 2006) indicates that sharks are the highest risk group in purse seines at greatest risk are the low fecundity silky shark, short finned mako, porbeagle, and oceanic whitetip rather than the more fecund blue shark sharks and hammerheads. Silky shark stocks are also of particular concern in the Indian Ocean. Sharks and rays are by nature slow growing, low fecundity species and thus are particularly vulnerable to over exploitation. Sharks in general are well known to be declining in both the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. The Bay of Bengal is rich in cetacean diversity and abundance with over 30 species of whales, dolphins and porpoises throughout the region. Other marine mammals that inhabit the Bay of Bengal include the dugong which generally frequent coastal waters in shallow protected bays and mangrove channels. These areas are coincident with sizable seagrass beds which form the main diet of dugongs. Dugongs are vulnerable to anthropogenic influences largely due to their dependence on seagrasses that are restricted to coastal habitats. Targeted hunting of dugong is now banned and habitat loss represents one of the most significant threats to this species. Accidental entangling in gill and mesh nets or traps set by fishers is considered a major, but largely unquantified, cause of dugong mortality (UNEP, 1996). Six, out of the seven species of marine turtle in the world, are found in the Bay of Bengal: green, hawksbill, flatback, leatherback, loggerhead and olive Ridley turtles. All species are known to nest on the beaches of one or more of the Bay of Bengal countries. The principle threat to turtles is shore based due to illegal poaching and egg harvesting, but they are also incidentally caught in fishing activities notably by demersal trawling, but also gill netting. Both juveniles and adults are captured during migration and fisheries interactions are therefore considered an important threat (Sarti, 2000). Page 29

43 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal In relation to performance all purse seine fisheries, except Malaysia, are assessed as intermediate due to accepted practice of releasing of dolphins and turtles by lowering nets to allow them to escape. A good performance is not reached due to potential interaction with ETP shark species, and the Malaysian purse seine fishery scores weakly due to interactions with critically endangered sawfish species. The beach seine in Sri Lanka has a good performance since it does not interact with any ETP species due to the inshore nature of this fishery. Bottom otter trawl in Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar has a weak performance primarily due to turtle interaction, but also due to incidental capture of demersal elasmobranchs. In Indonesia it is recognized that the major threat to turtles is land based and therefore an intermediate score is appropriate. In India all sea turtle species are protected with considerable financial penalties for their deliberate capture and therefore also has an intermediate performance. Gill nets in Indonesia and Myanmar have a weak performance on account of incidental capture or entanglement of cetaceans and dugongs, as well as turtles. However, Indian and Sri Lankan gill nets have a good performance since mesh sizes are considered to be too small to ensnare turtles or marine mammals. Page 30

44 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 13: ETP species in the Bay of Bengal Species Status Details Habitat & Fisheries Threat Country Ref Lamiopsis temmincki (Broadfin Shark) Endangered Found inshore on the continental shelf (mostly close inshore). Regularly taken by fishermen in India and Indonesia in bottom and floating gill nets All countries White et al, 2008 Elasmobranchs Sphyrna lewini (Scalloped Hammerhead) Sphyrna mokarran (Squatheaded Hammerhead Shark) Carcharhinus falciformis (Silky Shark) Isurus oxyrinchus (Shortfin Mako) Alopias vulpinus (Common Thresher Shark) Carcharhinus longimanus (Oceanic Whitetip Shark) Endangered Endangered Near threatened Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable This is a coastal and semi oceanic pelagic shark, found over continental and insular shelves and in deep water near to them, ranging from the intertidal and surface to at least 275 m depth Mainly taken by drift gillnets, bottom gillnets and on longlines, hook and line, pelagic and bottom trawls. This species is a bycatch in both the industrial and artisanal fisheries Silky Sharks are taken in pelagic commercial fisheries and also artisanal fisheries in this region and fishing pressure from purse seine fisheries targeting tunas and swordfish is high. Silky Sharks are the most commonly caught species of shark in the purse seine fishery for tunas in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Taken by a number of fisheries, most predominately longline, but also gill net and purse seine This species is frequently caught by offshore longline and pelagic gillnet fisheries, is also fished with anchored bottom and surface gillnets, and is a bycatch of other gear including bottom trawls and fish traps. This formerly widespread and abundant large oceanic shark is subject to fishing pressure virtually throughout its range. It is caught in large numbers as a bycatch in pelagic fisheries, with pelagic longlines, probably pelagic gillnets, handlines and occasionally pelagic and even bottom trawls All countries Baum et al, 2007 All countries Denham et al, 2007 All countries Bonfil et al, 2007 All countries Cailliet et al, 2004 All countries Goldman et al, 2007 All countries Baum et al, 2006 Carcharhinus hemiodon (Pondicherry Shark) Critically endangered This rare shark occurs (or occurred) in inshore localities and habitats subject to large, expanding, and unregulated artisanal and commercial fisheries. All countries Compagno et al, 2003 Glyphis siamensis (Irrawaddy River Shark) Critically endangered The Irrawaddy River Shark is known from only a single specimen collected in the Irrawaddy River delta, near the city of Yangon, Myanmar. It is assumed to be euryhaline, having been recorded from brackish water, and with congeners recorded from inshore marine waters Myanmar Barnett et al, 2008 Rostroraja alba (Bottlenose Skate) Endangered This is a benthic species of sandy and detrital bottoms from coastal waters to the upper slope region between about 40 to 400 m India Dulvy et al, 2006 Page 31

45 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Species Status Details Habitat & Fisheries Threat Country Ref Rhinobatos typus (Common Shovelnose Ray) Himantura fluviatilis (Ganges Stingray) Vulnerable Endangered The fins from Rhinobatos typus are widely considered as being amongst the most valuable of elasmobranchs (i.e., white fin) and there is a significant incentive for fishers to remove the fins from large individuals when they are taken as either target catch or bycatch This species is mostly restricted to freshwater habitats in the Ganges river system, extending 1,000 miles (1,609 km) above the tidal reach and from several localities, however there are also marine records of the species in the Bay of Bengal All countries White et al, 2003 Bangladesh, India Compagno, 2005 Aetobatus flagellum (Longheaded Eagle Ray) Endangered Highly susceptible to a variety of inshore demersal fisheries, including trawls, gillnets and trammel nets. There is very high level of exploitation on the habitat that this species occurs in throughout its entire range India & Sri Lanka White, 2006 Aetomylaeus maculatus (Mottled Eagle Ray) Endangered Highly susceptible to a variety of inshore demersal fisheries, including trawls, gillnets and trammel nets which operate intensively throughout its range. All caught are retained in most areas. All countries White, 2006 Aetomylaeus vespertilio (Reticulate Eagle Ray) Endangered Highly susceptible to a variety of inshore demersal fisheries, including trawls, gillnets and trammel nets which operate intensively throughout its range. All individuals caught are retained in most areas. Maldives, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia White, 2006 Anoxypristis cuspidata (Knifetooth Sawfish) Critically endangered A marine, euryhaline (moving between fresh and salt water) or marginal (brackish water) species found from inshore waters to a depth of 40 m. The principal threat to all sawfishes is fisheries, both targeted and bycatch, commercial and subsistence All countries Compagno et al, 2006 Pristis clavata (Queensland Sawfish) Critically endangered Coastal and estuarine habitats (predominately in Australia, but potential distribution in Bay of Bengal). CITES Appendix I. Indonesia; Malaysia; Thailand; India Cook et al, 2006 Pristis pectinata (Wide Sawfish) Critically endangered A large (to 700 cm) euryhaline sawfish found in marine, brackish and freshwater environments. CITES Appendix I. All countries IUCN, 2010 Pristis zijsron (Narrowsnout Sawfish) Critically endangered Inhabits muddy bottom habitats and enters estuaries (Allen 1997). It has been recorded in inshore marine waters to at least 40 m depth, in brackish water (estuaries and coastal lakes) and in rivers. It is the largest sawfish species (at least 5m). CITES Appendix I. India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand Compagno et al, 2006 Page 32

46 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Species Status Details Habitat & Fisheries Threat Country Ref Reptiles Eretmochelys imbricata (Hawksbill Turtle) Caretta caretta (Loggerhead) Chelonia mydas (Green Turtle) Lepidochelys olivacea (Olive Ridley) Natator depressus (Flatback) Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback) Neophocaena phocaenoides (Finless Porpoise) Critically endangered Many threats to this species including bycatch in fisheries (gill nets and trawl) and ingestion of marine debris is also significant All countries Mortimer et al, 2008 Endangered Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka Endangered Vulnerable Primary threat relating to legal and illegal harvesting of turtle eggs from nesting sites, also taken as bycatch in fisheries, notably shrimp trawling. CITES Appendix I. The incidental capture of Olive Ridleys occurs worldwide in trawl fisheries, longline fisheries, purse seines, gill net and other net fisheries All countries MTSG, 1996 Seminoff, 2004 All countries Grobois et al, 2008 Data deficient All countries IUCN 2010 Critically endangered Vulnerable Egg harvest and illegal poaching has removed more than 95% of the clutches, and this has been recognized as the main cause for the collapse in the Malaysia population (Chan and Liew 1996). Fishing activities using longline and driftnets are an important threat since juvenile and adult are captured in migratory routes. In some areas females are killed on the nesting beaches for oil extraction. CITES Appendix I. The finless porpoise is found mainly in coastal waters, including shallow bays, mangrove swamps, estuaries, and some large rivers. However, it can also occur in shallow waters (< 200 m deep) quite far from shore (up to 240 km). It appears to have a strong preference for waters with a sandy or soft bottom. CITES Appendix I. All countries All countries Martinez, 2000 Reeves et al, 2008 Marine mammals Orcaella brevirostris (Irrawaddy Dolphin) Sousa chinensis (Indopacific Hump backed Dolphin) Vulnerable Near threatened Irrawaddy dolphins prefer coastal areas associated with the muddy, brackish waters at river mouths, ranging offshore as far as the extent of the freshwater plume often only a few km but more than 60 km at the Meghna River mouth in Bangladesh. Main impact in relation to fisheries is from fixed nets. CITES Appendix I. Most humpback dolphins inhabit coastal or estuarine waters. Chinensis type dolphins are not known to be hunted directly in significant numbers anywhere in their range. However, they are often caught in fishing nets, such as gillnets and trawls. CITES Appendix I. All countries All countries Reeves et al, 2008 Reeves et al, 2008 Dugong dugon (Dugong) Vulnerable Range is predominately coastal and island waters, it is vulnerable to being by caught in gill netting and also targeted hunting. CITES Appendix I. India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia IUCN 2010 Page 33

47 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Species Status Details Habitat & Fisheries Threat Country Ref Tursiops aduncus (Indopacific Bottlenose Dolphin) Stenella longirostris (Spinner Dolphin) Delphinus capensis (Longbeaked Common Dolphin) Puffinus pacificus (Wedgetailed Shearwater) Puffinus tenuirostris (Shorttailed Shearwater) Data deficient The species near shore distribution makes it vulnerable to fishery conflicts. Incidental catches occur in a number of fisheries throughout the range, including gillnets and purse seines. CITES Appendix II. Data deficient The association of spinner dolphins with yellowfin tuna results in their entanglement in tuna purse seines. CITES Appendix II. Data deficient Long beaked common dolphin are known to be taken in bottom set gillnets and purse seine fisheries. CITES Appendix II. Least concern These species have an extremely large range and population sizes. Despite the fact that the population trends appear to be decreasing for these species, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable Least concern All countries All countries India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia India; Indonesia; Malaysia; Maldives; Sri Lanka India; Sri Lanka; Thailand Hammond et al, 2008 Hammond et al, 2008 IUCN 2010 BirdLife Int, 2009 BirdLife Int, 2009 Seabirds Puffinus carneipes (Fleshfooted Shearwater) Puffinus heinrothi (Heinroth's Shearwater) Least concern Vulnerable Very little is known about these species, although main threats are thought to occur at breeding colonies Maldives; Sri Lanka; Indonesia BirdLife Int, 2009 All countries? IUCN 2010 Pterodroma ultima (Murphy's Petrel) Near threatened All countries? IUCN 2010 Pterodroma externa (Juan Fernandez Petrel) Vulnerable It is highly pelagic, rarely approaching land except at breeding colonies. It is dependent on subsurface predators, especially yellowfin tuna, to drive prey to the surface. All countries? IUCN 2010 Source: IUCN Red List, 2010 Page 34

48 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Management There are a number of specific management actions taken by countries throughout the BOBLME area to protect ETP species. The International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA Sharks), developed by FAO s Technical Working Group on the Conservation and Management of Sharks in 1999, is a voluntary agreement to promote the conservation and sustainable management of sharks and their long term sustainable use. As a result of this National Plans of Action for the Conservation of Sharks (NPOA Sharks) are being developed on a country basis. The NPOA Sharks developed by Thailand and Malaysia entered implementation in ; the Indonesian plan was drafted in 2004, but has only recently begun implementation; the Indian plan is in development and the status for Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar is unknown. It is also noted that regional efforts to develop a management plan for shark fisheries are currently being carried out by BOBP IGO and BOBLME. Although not included in the Indian mackerel assessment, it is notable that the Maldives introduced a total ban on shark fishing in 2009, see Box 4 for further details. Box 4: Maldives ban on shark fishing In 1992 an economic analysis estimated that the revenue generated for shark based tourism in the Maldives was US$2.3 million; compared to revenue of US$ 0.7 million for the export of shark fins and meat (Marine Research Centre, 2007). With the conclusion that sharks are more valuable alive than dead, shark fishing in the Maldives was initially banned at 25 popular dive sites that have been protected under the Environmental Protection and Preservation Act. In 1998, a 10 year moratorium was then imposed on shark fishing within 20km from the atoll rims of 7 major atolls popular with dive tourists. A complete ban on fishing for any species of sharks within twelve miles from the atoll rim of all atolls of the Maldives was introduced on 1st March 2009, and has now been extended to cover all national waters. All species of marine turtles are protected from domestic consumption and trade by national laws and from international trade through being a party to CITES. In addition there are a number of country specific measures in place to protect turtles, for example Myanmar has closed areas in inshore locations specifically to protect turtles when they are returning to breed. Most of the BOBLME countries have at least some marine protected areas closed to fishing pressure in order to protect coral reefs and other sensitive habitats. Thailand has banned all demersal trawling fisheries within 3km of the shore to protect spawning areas. Such management measures are not specifically designed to protect ETP species, but indirectly contribute to their management. Therefore, overall the majority of countries and gears score intermediately for ETP management, with the exception of Indonesia which scores poorly due to lack of NPOA implementation and lack of Turtle Exclusion Device enforcement. Sri Lankan gill net and beach seine and Indian gill net score good performance due to their limited interaction with ETP species and robust management procedures for turtle interactions. 9 See Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2006) Page 35

49 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Information/monitoring There is sufficient information to broadly understand the impact of the different fisheries targeting Indian mackerel on ETP species throughout the BOBLME area. The types of ETP species, their range and distribution is also broadly understood. However, the level of interaction is not quantitatively known or even estimated, with the exception of Malaysia where turtle landings have historically been recorded. All countries and gears therefore have an intermediate performance with the exception of Malaysian bottom trawl which scores good performance Habitat interactions Status Fishing activities lead to changes in the structure of marine habitats and can determine the diversity, composition, biomass and productivity of the associated biota (Jennings & Kaiser, 1998). The direct effects of fishing on habitats vary according to the gears used and the habitats fished. The Indian mackerel fisheries in the BOBLME area include the following gears: purse seine, gill nets, beach seine and bottom otter trawling. Purse seines are deployed from the surface down into the water column to various depths, depending on where the school of fish being targeted are located. Contact with seabed or reef habitats are minimal and bottom contact is actively avoided by fishermen as the small mesh nylon netting is easily damaged. Habitat status for purse seiners throughout the BOBLME area has a good performance. Gill nets can be set on the bottom, in the water column or at the surface, depending on what species are being targeted. In all cases there will be some degree of contact with the seabed via anchors used to hold nets in position. The scale of this damage is small and unlikely to cause significant concern. Lost gill netting gear may entangle and impact sensitive habitats, notably coral reefs which can be threatened by derelict gill nets abrading and scouring living coral polyps and altering reef structure through large scale destruction of the reefs coral skeleton foundation (Donohue and Schorr, 2004; Macfadyen et al, 2009). The rates and magnitude of gill net loss in the BOBLME area (and wider Indian Ocean) remains largely unknown (Macfadyen et al, 2009). While an overall good performance is achieved by this gear type, further research to understand the occurrence and risk of gear loss would benefit the entire region. The beach seine fishery in Sri Lanka is entirely undertaken over sandy and muddy habitats without any complex rocks or coral, which are specifically avoided by the fishermen since they would render the gear unusable. These habitats, much of which are within or near to the surf zone, are highly dynamic and therefore this fishing gear is likely to only cause little or very short lived changes to the habitat. It should be noted that beach seine sites in Sri Lanka have remained fixed for many years at traditional locations and are not used in sensitive habitat areas. The beach seine fishery has a good performance in relation to habitat status. Mobile demersal fishing gears are known to have significant potential to impact seabed habitats and biological communities. Impacts are generally greatest in habitats that support sensitive communities such as corals and seagrass beds. Page 36

50 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal With bottom trawl gears, the main impact is associated with the heavy steel trawl doors that are used to keep the net open and are towed along the seabed. The heavy nature of the gear results in physical damage to the seabed that is evidenced by scour tracks. Repeated trawling of an area can cause long term changes in seabed communities and tends to reduce the seabed to a two dimensional structure. Long lived and slow growing species tend to be removed by multiple passes of trawls or by the effects of sedimentation as each pass of the net re suspends sediment which then may settle on and smother sessile fauna. In this way, large, long lived and slow growing fauna are gradually replaced by small, short lived and fast growing organisms that are capable of rapid reproduction and recolonization. The magnitude of bottom trawl impact on habitat is dependent on a number of factors including the speed of towing, physical dimensions and weight of the gear, type of substratum and strength of currents or tides in the area fished. The effects may persist for a few hours in shallow waters with strong tides or for decades in the deep sea. Overall the bottom trawl fisheries in the BOBLME area have a weak performance in relation to this impact. Management Both purse seine and beach seine have good performance for this component because management strategies are not necessary given the minimal impact of these gears. While gill nets also have minimal habitat impact, there is no management structure in place across all BOBLME countries to control the potential loss of gear e.g. due to rigging and gear failure. Nor is there a code of practice for gear retrieval or reporting of lost gear incidents. For these reasons an intermediate performance is appropriate. The bottom otter trawling fisheries in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar are managed in relation to closed areas to protect coral reefs (and other sensitive habitats) and/or spawning grounds for fish species. The latter is applicable to Thailand with the aforementioned seasonal closure to protect target and retained species spawning grounds. This represents a partial strategy in that it does not directly manage sensitive habitats, but this measure is appropriate for an intermediate performance level. In Malaysia, habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs are managed as reserves and marine parks respectively, some of which have no take zones. Furthermore zoned licensing prevents trawling within 5nm of the shore, however there is thought to be some encroachment by trawlers into this zone. In Indonesia and Myanmar there are closed areas specifically to manage coral reef interactions. However in Indonesia the extent and spatial distribution of protected areas is unknown, as is the level of compliance for the demersal trawl fleet to abstain from fishing within these areas. For all of these countries the protected areas are only in certain select areas rather than providing widespread protection of these habitat types. This is partly due to lack of information on the distribution of these habitats. Furthermore attention is focused purely on coral reefs and mangrove areas and further management of other habitats would be beneficial. As a result Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar all have an intermediate performance for habitat management. Page 37

51 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal In India management of the trawl fisheries is mainly through a coastal buffer zone and a short no fishing period. The latter is not sufficient for habitat protection requirements and it is understood that there is regular non compliance with the former. No other targeted spatial protection exists and therefore this fishery has a weak performance for this component. Information/monitoring The majority of countries have an intermediate performance in relation to habitat information. There is generally sufficient information on the occurrence of the most sensitive habitats (coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass), although the extent of coverage is not complete and mapping is not available to a scale that allows biotope identification. There is an encouraging project being undertaken in Indonesian waters which aims to map habitats (see Box 5 for further details). This level of detail provides an intermediate performance for Indonesian, Thailand, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Information on coral reef distribution is lacking for India resulting in a weak performance for the bottom otter trawl unit of assessment. In order to determine impact of fishing gear on habitats it is important to gain an understanding of where effort occurs, by which gear type and at what frequency. This level of detail is not available for any of the fisheries being studied, with the exception of Malaysia where zonal management provides insight into the gears operating throughout four distinct zones. For this reason Malaysian purse seine and bottom otter trawl fisheries have good performance. Box 5: Aceh Province Community Based Bathymetric Survey A Community Based Bathymetric Survey is currently in operation for Aceh Province through the voluntary use of sonar and GPS to map bathymetry and habitats. While significant areas have been monitored, the survey coverage is dependent on fishing vessels and therefore is not complete. This provides an excellent example of community based research to map habitat resources Ecosystem impacts Status The ecosystem component considers the broad ecological community and ecosystem in which the fisheries operate. The status of the previous environmental components (retained, discarded and ETP species and habitats) are not repeated but rather the systemwide issues are addressed. Primarily the indirect impacts of the fishery are considered including ecosystem structure, trophic relationships and biodiversity. The purse seine, beach seine and gill net fisheries catch a wide range of species including high rates of juveniles, which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is no ecosystem modeling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. Overall these gears score intermediate performance as natural mortality is high for these species over early life stages. Bottom otter trawling is a less selective gear, indiscriminately removing a wider range of species, as well as having a higher degree of indirect effects associated with habitat impacts. These trawling fisheries therefore score poorly for ecosystem status. Page 38

52 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Management Small pelagic species have a short population doubling time and therefore removal in large quantities may not have such a significant effect as for other species such as larger demersal fish. Despite this, the indirect effects of removing target and retained species from the food web requires some degree of management, which would also be applicable for management of retained species. For this reason gill nets, purse seine and beach seine score intermediately. Due to the weak ecosystem status performance of bottom otter trawling, which primarily targets shrimp and demersal fish, a higher degree of ecosystem management is necessary and the fisheries overall score weakly. Information/monitoring There is little information on the ecological impacts of the removal of target and retained species by these fisheries and ecosystem modeling has not been undertaken. Despite this the general structure of the food web, associated trophic levels and key elements of the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information on the overall impact of trawling gear on the wider ecosystem can be inferred and is sufficient to allow appropriate management measures to be implemented. Most of the fishing gears and countries score intermediately with the exception of Indian otter trawl and Myanmar otter trawl and purse seine fisheries where total removals are not well known. Page 39

53 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 2.4 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERIES GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Table 14 provides a summary of the assessment of performance for Principle 3 indicators, relating to both the general governance and policy framework (the broad, high level context of the fishery management system within which the fisheries are found), and also to fishery specific management (noting that specific management rules are covered under P1 and P2). As there is no regional management of Indian mackerel at the present time, even though stocks are shared, the assessments have been completed on a national basis rather than assessing policy and management at a regional level. Table 14: Summary table for Principle 3; Indian mackerel Principle 3 Country Legal customary framework Governance & Policy Consultation, roles & responsibilitie s Principle 3: Governance & Management Long term objectives Fishery specific management Incentives for Fishery specific Decision making Compliance & Research plan sustainable objectives processes enforcement fishing Management performance evaluation UoA ID PS, BOT, GN TH PS, BOT MY PS, BOT, GN MM PS, BOT IN BOT, GN LK GN, BS Source: Poseidon. ID = Indonesia, TH = Thailand, MY = Malaysia, MM = Myanmar, IN = India, LK = Sri Lanka Governance and policy Legal and customary framework For most of the units of assessment, the fisheries management system rests within an overarching legal and/or customary framework that is broadly supportive of stock and ecosystem protection, but which could be improved. In Sri Lanka, the fisheries law includes detailed provisions, through the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry or a Commissioner, to deal with fishing disputes. But in many other countries formal processes enshrined in law to resolve disputes are not in place. Many countries in the region also require revision of existing fisheries laws to better support fisheries management and to better reflect recent international developments and the need for regional action. Revision of fisheries law is a process that is underway in some countries, such as Thailand. In a number of countries there are strong customary frameworks in place, with rights created explicitly or established by custom for people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood. Though sometimes motivated primarily by conflict mitigation, such rights often also serve to provide measures in support of resource protection. In Sri Lanka, the use of beach seines in particular locales is well established through custom and respected within the current fisheries management regime. The panchayat system in Tamil Nadu in India (see Box 6) is another good example of a customary management framework continuing to be used with fisheries management benefits. Page 40

54 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Box 6: The panchayats and fisheries management in Tamil Nadu, India In Tamil Nadu in India for example, there is a traditional/customary system for artisanal fisheries management, strongly based on territoriality. The main driver of this traditional system is conflict management and resolution, rather than resource management. Fishermen of each hamlet, represented by their panchayat, cannot restrict who can fish (i.e. there is a system of open access and fishermen can fish within zones under the responsibility of different panchayats) but panchayats can restrict how/when fishermen fish. Non governmental fisher councils have strong authority to restrict or prohibit gear types considered to be harmful to the stock, to other gear users and to the community as a whole. Pancharats for fishing village/hamlets may not be elected as is the case in formal villages. So while such formal villages are provided for in law by government, fishing villages/hamlets and the decisions they make may not be, so customary rights may not be legally recognized even if they are respected. Many countries have legal frameworks which provide for decentralization and devolved fisheries management powers. In Indonesia for example, the 1999 Autonomy Act devolves power to district and Provincial levels. In India, the Constitution provides for all fisheries management powers within territorial waters (12 nautical miles) to rest at State level. However, while decentralization in theory should enable more effective fisheries management tailored to the needs of particular locations, it is often the case that overarching national policy is not applicable in different locations, and/or that administrations at a more local level have insufficient capacity to plan, formulate and implement policies. Malaysia s legal framework may be considered as one of the more progressive in the region. The current Act is the Fisheries Act 1985, and the regulations made under the Act provide the legal framework for the management of fishery resources and aquaculture. There is a strong deterrent mechanism within the laws, as well as a certified ISO 9000 approved, integrated licensing system. The Federal Constitution of Malaysia clearly divides the lawmaking authority of the Federation into its legislative authority, judicial authority and executive authority. The separation of power also occurs both at federal and state levels. The fisheries system recognizes the rights of traditional fishers and there is a sound legal system to consider and resolve disputes in addition to supporting enforcement. Consultation, roles and responsibilities Effective governance requires that all those involved have a clear idea of what their responsibilities and obligations are within the management system. The assessments found that, leaving aside the question of implementation, this is almost universally the case. The reason for this may be the decentralization referred to above, as well as the strongly hierarchical and structured nature of many fisheries departments. Likewise, those in research institutions tend to have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, as do those involved with enforcement activities. Thus, whether or not they have the financial resources and human capacity to undertake the specified roles, those involved know what they should be doing in support of effective fisheries management. Page 41

55 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal With respect to consultation, processes to develop policy and involvement in the management system, is also found to be good and open to interested and affected parties, again generally due to both decentralization and to traditional institutional structures which have been incorporated into the modern fisheries management process. The Box below (Box 7) provides an example from Indonesia, while in Thailand a multi stakeholder fishery conservation committee (made up of the Department of Fisheries, research institutions, community NGOs and fishermen s representatives) receives research analysis and information each year which is then debated and recommendations are made to the Department which may then make rule changes (e.g. closed areas and seasons) where advised. Many countries, such as India and Malaysia, also have a system of fisheries extension officers meeting regularly with fishermen, which serves to support consultation. Box 7: Panglima Laot, Aceh Within Aceh Province in Indonesia, there are approximately 193 Panglima Laot, which are typically located in an estuary or a harbor. A Panglima Laot is a fishermen s institution which has played a dominant role in governing the fishing industry in Aceh for over four centuries. The traditional institution is composed of a loose network of localized fishermen associations that follow a strict set of rules and regulations. The term "Panglima Laot" is both the name of the institution as well as the title of the elder fishermen who lead the organization. The Panglima Laot communicate changes in regulations to the fishing industry. They have regular weekly meetings and provide an important framework for regular consultation between Government and fishermen. Long term objectives This indicator explores the extent to which management policy has clear long term objectives to guide decision making that are consistent with the principles of sustainability and the precautionary approach, and assesses how implicit/explicit are any such objectives. Generally performance in all units of assessment and countries can only be considered intermediate at best. Policy in many countries in the Bay of Bengal refers to sustainable production and future generations, implying long term objectives, and may require a precautionary approach (e.g. Sri Lanka). But of particular concern (and the primary reason most countries performance is only rated as intermediate, is that in many countries policy places a very strong emphasis on production increases. Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, for example, all have specific production targets specified in their policies, which may not be consistent with sustainability and a precautionary approach, especially as there remain considerable gaps in knowledge about Indian mackerel stocks. There is far less clarity in policy and management frameworks of management objectives/targets, such as increasing marine protected areas or reducing fleet capacities. Thus it appears that there may not always be the explicit recognition that there should be when setting objectives of important policy trade offs, for example of short term pain in exchange for long term gain, or tradeoffs between social objectives (e.g. maximizing participation/employment) and resource management objectives (e.g. limiting access). Policy is also often rather silent on the need for objectives in relation to cooperation with regional fishery management organizations and international conventions. Page 42

56 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Incentives for sustainable fishing India, Thailand, Myanmar and Indonesia are all assessed as weak in terms of their performance against this indicator, as in all these countries some form of subsidies are provided which are almost certainly contributing to overcapacity in the fleets targeting Indian mackerel. The most common form of subsidy relates to cheap fuel. Subsidies of this nature distort the costs of fishing making it artificially cheap to catch fish, thereby encouraging increases in fishing effort/capacity compared to a situation without the use of such subsidies. Malaysia also scores poorly due to the welfare related subsidy levels. Box 8: Subsidies in Tamil Nadu, India There are a very large number of subsidy schemes provided by the government to the fisheries sector in Tamil Nadu. One or two of these could arguably be considered as good subsidies in terms of their ability to assist with resource management e.g. relief to fishermen during the ban period which encourage compliance. But almost all other schemes are of a welfare or financial nature that serves to maintain/increase fishing capacity, even if they also serve an important function in terms of poverty prevention / alleviation. The Tamil Nadu policy note for example (which is primarily only a list of fisheries subsidies/support programmes) includes subsidies for both motorization of vessels and for fuel. There appears to be no mechanism by which the impact of such support is evaluated in terms of its impact on resource sustainability. In Thailand, and to a lesser extent in some other countries, the heavy reliance on trash fish to support fish meal and other processing, has meant that mesh sizes used in both the fish and shrimp trawl sectors have been maintained at a level that results in very high levels of bycatch. The high demand for trash fish incentivizes the use of small mesh and there has been little done to counteract this. Sri Lanka and Malaysia s performance is scored as weak, because although they do not provide any negative subsidies, they also do not provide any subsidies which might be construed as positive in the sense of encouraging and incentivizing changes to more sustainable fishing methods e.g. funds for gear selectivity improvements, moves towards rights based management (i.e. transferable quotas) in Indian mackerel fisheries. A note should also be made with regards to post tsunami support. While the need for free/cheap fishing inputs (boats, fishing gear) in the region was absolutely necessary due to the devastating impact of the tsunami on the fisheries sector, it is also true that the provision and re equipping of those in the sector, however well intentioned, could/should have been better planned so as to guard against excess fleet capacities (and the resulting risks to resource sustainability). And while it is also certainly the case that many marginalized fishers have still not recovered from the livelihood effects of the disaster, continuing post tsunami support in some countries should be carefully evaluated to assess its impacts on sustainability and the danger of incentivizing over exploitation Fisheries specific management systems Fishery specific objectives This indicator assesses whether the units of assessment for Indian mackerel have clearly articulated objectives that serve to emphasize sustainability, the precautionary approach, ecosystems based management etc. A best case scenario for example would be one in Page 43

57 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal which such objectives were clearly articulated as part of a fisheries management plan (along with decision making processes, compliance and enforcement arrangements, research, and monitoring/evaluation of the plan i.e. the following indicators). In none of the countries or units assessed is this the case, and all units of assessment therefore have a weak performance for this indicator. This may in part be explained by the fact that for some countries, such as Sri Lanka, Indian mackerel catches are very small in absolute terms (as well as being just a couple of percent of small pelagic catches). Perhaps more important is the multi species nature of many fisheries in the region, with Indian mackerel generally caught as bycatch in multi species small pelagic fisheries. Only on the west coast of Malaysia are Rastrelliger spp. the predominant group in mixed catches (both Rastrelliger brachysoma and Rastrelliger kanagurta). For all other units of assessment, Indian mackerel is just one of, and generally a relatively small component of, the many species landed. This means that developing species specific management plans for Indian mackerel has not been a priority in the region. But the assessments found that none of the countries even have small pelagic management plans, which could serve to clearly articulate fishery specific objectives of such multispecies fisheries (rather than general objectives associated with broader fisheries policy), and which might serve to guide fisheries management of Indian mackerel (and other small pelagic species) so as to ensure sustainable exploitation. The situation is particularly worrying in some countries such as Sri Lanka, where objectives consistent with sustainability are not even implicit given that there are no management regulations at all aimed at regulating effort or catches in the small pelagic fishery, and not even any minimum mesh sizes in operation. Most of the units of assessment are in a similar position, and are characterized by open access. There are however some positive signs of movement towards fisheries specific management plans which would include fishery specific objectives, as described in the Box below (see Box 9). Box 9: Fisheries management plans in Indonesia Indonesia has a requirement, as part of its National Law 31/2004 to implement fishery specific management plans. The Ministry has identified 44 management units in 11 fishery management areas. Each unit is divided into demersal, shrimp, small pelagic and tunas. Currently three test cases are being explored by the Ministry for implementation via management groups that are being set up for each case study. At the present time however there is no Indian mackerel specific management plan, nor one covering all small pelagic species. Decision making processes The comments made above on the indicator for fishery specific objectives, generally apply also to fishery specific decision making processes, in the sense that there are no Indianmackerel specific processes in place to decide how best to manage the fisheries in a way that responds quickly and effectively to research, stock assessment advice, etc, and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives. The assessments therefore result in weak scores across all units of assessment. Page 44

58 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal If Indian mackerel (or small pelagic) fisheries specific management plans were in place for example, one could envisage such plans stipulating decision making processes such as the composition and responsibilities of Indian mackerel (or small pelagic) working groups. But this is not the case at the present time. Compliance and enforcement Assessment of the compliance and enforcement of relevant regulations in Indian mackerel fisheries suggests intermediate performance in most countries in the region. It is frequently the case that budgets for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) operations are insufficient, and that there is a lack of adequate planning of MCS operations so as to ensure the greatest benefit from scare financial resources. Sanctions may not always be applied in a consistent and transparent manner, and thus do not always act as a sufficient deterrent. The result in mixed levels of compliance in many of the fisheries assessed. However there are also some positive aspects to compliance and enforcement in the region. The MCS system in Malaysia for example has a hull color coding system that enables prompt establishment of a vessel s right to fish in a certain area. In Tamil Nadu, compliance and enforcement of larger vessels operating in harbors is considered to be relatively effective, especially with regards to the main management measure which is the fishing ban period; fishing vessels are required to obtain a token from the government to obtain subsidized fuel, and such tokens are not provided during the ban period. This provides a strong financial incentive for compliance, and it is of course very easy to determine whether a fishing vessel is fishing or not. And in both Indonesia and India, the traditional Panglima Laot and Panchayat systems serve to support enhanced compliance. Other community based measures of a more recent nature are also being developed, and could serve as a useful model for replicability within the region (see Box 10). Box 10: Pilot community based MCS in Thailand There are approximately 20 pilot MCS groups operating at the Tambon level. These groups are trained and provided with basic equipment binoculars, life jackets and radios to police their own zones. The initiative for the MCS pilot projects came from fishers and follows the EU funded CHARM project in which community groups were engaged in community based fisheries management (CBFM). Despite these encouraging examples, it is generally the case across the region that enforcement activities could be much improved if documented risk based (MCS) plans were prepared annually focusing on locations, seasons, and stakeholders felt to be of special concern in terms of compliance. Such plans could also help to further articulate roles and responsibilities of those engaged in enforcement activities, and could at some stage in the future incorporate regional initiatives such as joint deployment plans. Research plan Fisheries specific management requires fisheries specific research so as to address the information needs of management, and to provide research in a timely and reliable manner. Performance for this indicator is generally scored as intermediate. It is undoubtedly the case that there are very many high qualified and experienced fisheries researchers based in the various research institutions in the region. There are also some research topics that are well researched and documented. Page 45

59 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal However, none of the countries have documented Indian mackerel (or small pelagic) fisheries specific research plans, and there remain considerable research gaps. In many countries research plans to the extent that they exist at all, are purely the annual research plans/budgets prepared by the research institutions, rather than research plans justifying particular research topics and explaining their link to management needs. It is also the case that in a number of countries research outputs are now reliant on data that is considerably out of date. Earlier sections in the report have already highlighted a number of weaknesses in research and information on both fish stocks and ecosystems. Research on small pelagic species is typically neglected in favor of the use of scarce financial and human resources for research on other species viewed as being of greater commercial significance (e.g. large tunas, demersal and shellfish stocks). To some extent this may be justified, although the very significant socio economic importance of small pelagics in terms of food security should not be forgotten, but the use of scare resources to cover research across all fisheries further justifies the need for species specific research plans which are strategic in focusing on key research needs for individual fisheries. Thus for Indian mackerel and small pelagic species more generally, carefully justified and documented research plans would be a significant step forward in providing key information needed for management. Such plans, as part of, or linked to wider Indian mackerel or small pelagic management plans, could also be effective in seeking funding from both government and bilateral/international donors, as they would demonstrate and justify the need for particular research in support of management. Management performance evaluation This indicator considers whether there is a system for monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery specific management system against its objectives, and whether there is effective and timely review of the fishery specific management system. Performance against this indicator is to some extent self evidently weak, given that there are no fisheries specific management systems to evaluate. For this indicator we have therefore taken a slightly broader view of the extent to which fisheries management performance in general is evaluated. Some positive examples of performance evaluation of a more general nature are evident in the region. In Indonesia, the Ministry provides a guide for consistent implementation of fisheries policy and management according to general fisheries legislation and implementation of this is checked, National to Province, and Province to District, through annual audit processes. In India, there are various internal evaluation mechanisms in place in the Fisheries Department whereby staff at state level monitor district level staff and their activities. In addition, where the Ministry of Agriculture at national level provides funds for specific activities, evaluators/monitors from the Comptroller Auditor General periodically check on the implementation of activities in terms of both budget expenditure and effectiveness. But despite these examples, performance for this indicator can only be scored as intermediate in the best cases. There is a general failure in the region to set and then assess performance against any defined and measurable objectives and indicators. Page 46

60 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal This failure could be resolved through documented monitoring and evaluation plans (linked to, or part of management plans). In this context it is helpful to consider separately monitoring indicators and evaluation indicators although they are often referred to together (i.e. as M&E indicators), as the purpose and characteristics of the two are rather different. Monitoring indicators should be used for the continuous frequent measuring of the extent to which the activities specified in the policy and management framework are being successfully completed. Generally, managers with responsibility for policy implementation use indicators to assess outputs and progress. Monitoring indicators can then be used to take corrective action on implementation through appropriate feedback mechanisms i.e. by highlighting that a specific activity is being carried out too slowly. Monitoring indicators can therefore be viewed as process indicators. Evaluation indicators on the other hand are used to measure results/impacts/benefits. They can be considered equivalent to policy/management impact indicators, and are generally strongly focused on performance. Usually assessments should be made less frequently, and at the mid term and final stage of a policy planning period i.e. after 2.5 years, and again after 5 years, if a formal policy/management review process takes place every five years. Page 47

61 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 2.5 CONCLUSIONS KEY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES As evidenced from the two tables below (Table 15 and Table 16), there is a wide variety of performance against the different indicators between the different units of assessment. Section 2 has highlighted a number of key strengths in some countries/fisheries, but overall there remains much room for improvement. This is perhaps particularly the case for Principle 1, where indicators of Indian mackerel stock status, and the specific harvest/management strategy, generally provide considerable cause for concern despite the generally robust nature of a small pelagic species such as Indian mackerel. Performance against Principle 2 is more generally positive, but again, considerable weaknesses exist in the status of some critical habitats, endangered species, and retained bycatch species. On a positive note is the fact that there are virtually no discards in the fisheries assessed. For Principle 3, with respect to the overall governance and policy framework, while some improvements would be useful, performance against the indicators is generally reasonable for the legal and customary frameworks in place, the levels of consultation and the clarity in the roles and responsibilities of those involved in management, and the nature of long term objectives (save for a failure to resolve conflicting policy objectives and a strong emphasis on production increases). Of special concern however is the continued use of subsidies which serve to increase fishing capacity/effort, and few positive incentives provided for greater sustainability e.g. gear selectivity, rights based mechanisms. Performance against the fisheries specific management system is generally much weaker, with virtually no specific objectives, decision making process, research plans, MCS strategies, or performance evaluation, for either Indian mackerel management in particular, or even for management of small pelagic species more generally. Table 15: Average scores by Principles Indian mackerel Country Unit of Assessment P1 average P2 average P3 average ID Purse seine 1.13 ID Btm Otter trawl ID Gill nets 0.87 TH Purse seine TH Btm Otter trawl MY Purse seine 1.27 MY Btm Otter trawl MY Gill nets 1.07 MM Purse seine MM Btm Otter trawl IN High opening bottom trawl IN Gill nets 50 65mm 1.27 LK Small mesh gillnet LK Beach seine Source: Poseidon. ID = Indonesia, TH = Thailand, MY = Malaysia, MM = Myanmar, IN = India, LK = Sri Lanka Page 48

62 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 16: Summary assessment for all Principles and indicators; Indian mackerel Principle 1 Country Stock status Outcome Reference points Principle 1: Stock status Stock rebuilding if necessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest strategy Harvest control Information and rules and tools monitoring Assessment UoA ID Indian mackerel 0 0 * TH Indian mackerel 0 0 * MY Indian mackerel 0 0 * MM Indian mackerel 0 0 * IN Indian mackerel 1 0 * LK Indian mackerel 2 0 * Principle Retained Retained Retained info / Discards Discards Discards info / ETP ETP info / Habitat Habitat Habitat info / Ecosystem Ecosystem Ecosystem info / ETP status UoA status management monitoring status management monitoring management monitoring status management monitoring status management monitoring ID Purse seine Country Retained Discards Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts ID Btm Otter trawl ID Gill nets TH Purse seine TH Btm Otter trawl MY Purse seine MY Btm Otter trawl MY Gill nets MM Purse seine MM Btm Otter trawl IN High opening bottom trawl IN Gill nets 50 65mm LK Small mesh gillnet LK Beach seine ETP Habitat Ecosystem Principle 3 Country Legal customary framework Governance & Policy Consultation, roles & responsibilitie s Principle 3: Governance & Management Long term objectives Fishery specific management Incentives for Fishery specific Decision making Compliance & Research plan sustainable objectives processes enforcement fishing Management performance evaluation UoA ID PS, BOT, GN Ranking TH PS, BOT Good MY PS, BOT, GN Intermediate MM PS, BOT Weak IN BOT, GN LK GN, BS Source: Poseidon. ID = Indonesia, TH = Thailand, MY = Malaysia, MM = Myanmar, IN = India, LK = Sri Lanka Page 49

63 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 3 REGIONAL SYNTHESIS HILSA SHAD 3.1 OVERVIEW Biology of the hilsa shad The hilsa shad, Tenualosa ilisha, is a clupeid (i.e. of the herring family) and is an anadromous species (e.g. spawns in freshwater but has a significant seawater growth phase), although two other eco types a fluvial potamodromous type (i.e. migrates in freshwater only) and a marine type have also been recognized. It is found in the Tigris River basin in the Arabian / Persian Gulf on the west eastward to Myanmar, although may rarely be found as far east as the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam (see FishBase for more information on the geographical distribution). During the breeding season hilsa ascend the rivers and after spawning, return to the original habitat where they remain till the next breeding season. The riverine stocks appear to remain in the freshwater areas throughout the year but there is a greater concentration in the lower reaches during the period between breeding seasons (Pillay and Rosa, 1963), thus indicating that one segment of the population is not truly anadromous. During the marine phase of their life they are mainly found in nearshore waters, although may be dispersed in the wider areas of Bay of Bengal and extended up to km from the coastline (Milton, 2010). The upstream migration during the main breeding season appears to depend largely on the commencement of the south west monsoon and consequent flooding of all the rivers of Bangladesh, Myanmar and India. The variations in the intensity of the monsoon during the breeding season appear to cause considerable fluctuations of the fish catches in different places. According to Day (1873) the minor breeding migration in March April in the upper Irrawaddy takes place when the rivers are flooded by melting snow, not by monsoon rains. Figure 4: Hilsa shad, Tenualosa ilisha Source: FishBase The extent of migration in the rivers varies considerably. In the Irrawaddy, hilsa is known to ascend to a distance of over 700 km from the sea. The range of migration in the Brahmaputra is up to Tezpur, a distance of about 306 km from the Bangladesh border. The stock of hilsa in the river Ganga is reported to migrate as far as Agra and Delhi, covering a distance of about 1 287km. In West Bengal, hilsa once ascended the Hooghly River for about Page 50

64 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 298 km, but with the building of the Farakka Barrage in 1974, the hilsa catch has declined to less than 1 kg/km above Farakka Barrage after its commissioning as compared to the pre Farakka (11.61 kg/km) scenario (Ghosh et al, 1978). Pillay et al concluded through a combination of tagging studies and morphometric comparisons that hilsa populations show little or no movement between rivers, with little intermingling of populations (Pillay et al, 1962; and Pillay et al, 1963). More recently hilsa from the Ganga, Yamuna and Hooghly rivers were sampled using DNA based genetic analysis, which showed the existence of genetic variation within and between hilsa populations in these rivers, indicating the presence of sub populations that may be due to differing environmental conditions in each river system (CIFRI, 2008). Therefore, despite recent conclusions that there is one main hilsa stock in the Bay of Bengal (Hussain et al. 1998; Milton & Chenery, 2001; Salini et al, 2004), care should be taken to preserve the identity of sub populations, especially if hatchery based restocking is to be considered. The fish is known to be a fast swimmer (Southwell and Prashad, 1918). Tagging experiments have shown that a fish may cover as much as 70.8 km in one day (Pillay et al., 1963). According to Mojumdar (1939), hilsa move in the sea on the surface whereas in the river they move at a depth of 14 to 18 metres, though on a cool or drizzly day they may rise to within 2 metres from the surface. During migrations upstream, the fish do congregate, but they have never been observed to form very dense schools as observed in the case of many pelagic fishes. During winter months, however, they have been found to form very large schools at the entrance of the Hooghly estuary. A Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) was undertaken utilizing the risk based approach to fisheries assessment developed by the MSC. The PSA approach examines attributes of each species that contribute to or reflect its productivity or susceptibility, in order to provide a relative measure of the risk to the scoring element from fishing activities. Productivity is the average of seven attributes, while susceptibility is the product of four aspects. MSC s PSA process examines the productivity of each species and then factors in the susceptibility to different gears, thus coming up with a composite risk for each species / gear composition. Hilsa scores highly on all seven productivity attributes (see table below), and thus in terms of its physiology and reproductive strategy, can be considered a highly productive species. Table 17: Hilsa key productivity attributes Attribute Hilsa Risk level Source Av. age at maturity 9 months 1 year Low GC Halder, pers. comm.; Av. maximum age 5 6 years Low FishBase Fecundity 450,000 to 2,000,000 Low Rahman et al, 2010 Av. maximum size 60 cm Low Fishbase Av. size at maturity 20 cm Low Haldar & Rahman, 1998 Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner Low GC Halder, pers. comm.. Trophic level 2.04 Low FishBase Page 51

65 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal When the susceptibility to different fishing gears is introduced, the overall risk from fisheries can be determined. The table below shows that large mesh gillnet fisheries tend to be lower risk because of the lower proportion of the distribution fished (thus reducing availability score) and the lower level of encounterability (the gillnet only fishes surface waters in the deeper estuarine and marine waters). Otherwise, despite the larger mesh size, selectivity and post capture mortality is broadly the same. Similarly Myanmar purse seine fisheries, which are only operated at sea, have a lower chance of catching hilsa and therefore a better availability score. Furthermore, the recent increase in mesh size to 2.5 inches allows a relatively better selectivity score. The smaller mesh gillnet fishery scores poorly on all elements of the analysis, as much of the available area is fished with a high level of encounterability (e.g. the net covers much of the water column), with a low level of selectivity from the small mesh sizes used and the lack of discards and the high level of postcapture mortality. However, because of the resilience of hilsa as a species, the overall risk to hilsa is considered medium i.e. could be addressed through improved management conditions. Table 18: Gear wise PSA table for hilsa shad in the Bay of Bengal fisheries Country & gear type Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Country Gear type Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score India Bangladesh Myanmar Gill nets (min 12mm) Med Gillnets (min 85mm) Low >80 Gill nets (<60mm) Med Gillnets (>60mm) Low >80 Purse seine Low >80 Gillnets Med Stow nets Med Availability: overlap of species range with fishery Encounterability: overlap of gear with fish distribution in the water column Selectivity: selectivity of gear and likelihood of capture Post capture mortality: whether fish is retained (or dead if released) In a separate PSA analysis for hilsa in the Bay of Bengal, Milton (2010) examined a range of weighted susceptibility and productivity attributes, including (for susceptibility) the effect of river flows, protected areas and the life stages fished. The results of the PSA analysis show that there is great uncertainty in the status of trends in the attributes from India and Myanmar (see Table 19 overleaf). Page 52

66 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 19: PSA for hilsa Criteria Weighting India Bangladesh Myanmar Susceptibility Adult habitat quality Juvenile habitat quality Life stages fished River flows Protected areas Range Overall susceptibility Productivity Probability of breeding Mortality index Age composition Fecundity Commercial catch rates Growth rates Overall productivity Source: Milton (2010) NB: Numbers in italics have not been investigated in detail Description of main fleets and gears, and units of assessment The main fleets and gears catching Hilsa shad in countries/areas in the BOB which have been examined by the consultants, are described in the table below (Table 20), along with the units of assessment for which performance has been assessed. As can be seen from the table, these mainly consist of gillnets of various mesh sizes, although fishers in Myanmar also use purse seines (in marine waters only) and stow nets in rivers. Table 20: Main fleets/gears targeting Hilsa shad, and units of assessment Country/ Area West Bengal (India) Description of main fleets/gears catching Hilsa shad The main gear used to catch hilsa are drift or set gillnets (accounting around 96% of production), with the balance being traditional gears such as the clap net (sangla jal). The majority of these are multifilament, although a small proportion (c. 7%) are nylon monofilament nets. Mesh sizes vary from 15 to 140mm, but are more normally in the range of 75 to 85mm. The minimum legal mesh size is 12mm in riverine areas, except during the breeding season (15 th June 30 th September) when this is increased to 25mm. In the estuarine and marine areas, the minimum mesh size is 85mm. Other gears of only minor importance in terms of catch volumes are the behunti jal, a stationary bag net with a wide mouth of 27m and with very small cod end of mesh size (about 2mm), char pata jal, a screen barrier with a very small mesh for harvesting juveniles, and sitki jal, a skimming net made up of polyethylene netting Units of assessment considered in this report Gillnets (both drift and set) in West Bengal with a minimum mesh size of 12mm targeting hilsa and other species in riverine waters (operated predominantly by unmechanised vessels). Gillnets (both drift and set) in West Bengal with a minimum mesh size of 85mm targeting hilsa in estuarine and marine waters (operated predominantly by mechanized vessels) The numerous other small gear types used in the riverine areas Page 53

67 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Country/ Description of main fleets/gears catching Hilsa shad Area of mesh size of about 2mm for collecting fry. Around ¾ of boats targeting hilsa in West Bengal are unmechanised and largely (80%) made of wood. These are usually fishing in the riverine areas over day trips. The rest of the fleet is mechanized and works multi day (5 10 days) trips in estuarine and marine areas. Bangladesh The main fishing gears are the drift gillnet (Gulti or Kona Jal) which takes around 75 80% of the catch, the set gill net (Chandi jal) which takes around 10 15% of the catch, and the monofilament drift gillnet (current jal) which takes around 5% of the catch. In addition there are numerous other small gears that are used to catch hilsa (and other fish), including the seine net (Jagat ber jal), fixed encircling net (Char ghera jal), etc. Mesh sizes must be at least 90mm, with the exception of the current jal which must have a mesh size of at least 100mm. However there is widespread use of smaller mesh sizes (50 60mm) gillnets used in the rivers over February March targeting new recruits to the fishery despite the ban on fishing juvenile fish and the minimum mesh size of 90cm. The marine fishery targets adult fish utilizing a wide variety of mesh sizes ( mm), mainly over July to September Vessel types similar to those in West Bengal Myanmar Purse seine are mobile gear that consist of a large netting wall which is set by the vessel from the surface to surround aggregated fish, both from the sides and underneath, thus preventing them escaping from the bottom of the net. Gill nets are stationary gear consisting of a single netting wall kept more or less vertical by a float line and a weighted ground line. The net is generally set on the bottom when targeting demersal species and from the top when targeting pelagic species. Stow nets are stationary gear made from very fine netting, with mesh sizes typically 12mm. The nets are fixed to the benthos by anchors or stakes and placed according to the direction and strength of the current (FAO, 2010). The net endings, which are in a cone or pyramid shape, are usually hauled by hand while the body and stakes are left in position. As a consequence the gear can remain in the same location for a long period of time, with emptying of the conical ends on a regular basis. Units of assessment considered in this report are not considered by the assessment given the very small percentage of the catches by these gears Gillnets in Bangladesh (both drift and set) with a mesh size of 40 60mm targeting juvenile hilsa (jatka) in riverine waters (operated predominantly by unmechanised vessels) Gillnets in Bangladesh (both drift & set) with a min. mesh size of mm targeting adult hilsa in estuarine and marine waters (operated predominantly by mechanized vessels). The numerous other small gear types used in the riverine areas are not considered by the assessment given the very small percentage of the catches by these gears Purse seines in Myanmar set in marine waters Gillnets in Myanmar (both drift and set) with a mesh size of 25 65mm in river mouths and estuaries Stationary stow nets set within rivers from very fine netting, with mesh sizes typically 12mm Source: Poseidon. NB Hilsa is not caught commercially in other countries/areas in any meaningful volumes Page 54

68 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Current effort, catches (volume & value) and socio economic importance Summary information on vessel numbers catching hilsa, catches (volumes and estimated values, and CPUE trends), and main markets, is provided in the table below (Table 21). The table shows: CPUE trends show declines and indicate overfishing on stocks; Hilsa fisheries are particular important in Bangladesh in terms of vessel numbers and catch volumes/values; and While there are some exports, hilsa is mostly consumed domestically in the countries in which it is caught. Hidden with the catch data provided in the table is an important shift in the relative importance of marine and inland catches in each country. In both West Bengal and Bangladesh, inland catches have been contributing a decreasing proportion of total hilsa catches over time. The main causes are likely to be increasing levels of pollution and sedimentation in riverine systems, and reduced water flow from upstream (which results in the drying up of rivers, and saline intrusion). Also not reflected in the table is that yearly/cyclical fluctuations in catches due to environmental conditions, can be very considerable. Table 21: Vessel numbers, catches, and markets for Hilsa shad Country/ Area Estimated vessel numbers (trends) Estimated catch volumes (trends) CPUE trends West Bengal (India) Not accurately known but >20,000 (increasing) Bangladesh c. 100,000 inland and 25,000 marine <20,000 (declined rapidly in recent years) 298,921 tonnes in (increasing) Myanmar Not known Volume consumed domestically is not known; 12,606 tonnes exported, 2009 Source: Poseidon. Decreasing Estimated catch values INR 2 billion/ $50 million (2008) Decreasing Tk billion / $ million (2009) Not known Value of fish consumed domestically is not known; US$20.4 million exported, 2009 Main markets Mostly domestic Mostly domestic, but also some exports Domestic and export The hilsa fisheries in all three countries/areas, but especially in Bangladesh and West Bengal, play a critical role in terms of the generation of employment and income. In Bangladesh for example, while exact numbers of people involved with hilsa fisheries (catching, processing/marketing, etc) are not reliably known, some recent estimates have suggested around 500,000 fishers may catch hilsa and another million people indirectly involved in the distribution and sale of hilsa, as well as in ancillary activities such Page 55

69 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal as net and boat making, ice production, processing and export (Rahman et al, 2010). The socio economic status of most hilsa fishermen can be categorized as socio economically disadvantaged in terms of access to services (education, health, banking, electricity, piped water), and income. However, given the relatively high value of hilsa given strong local demand, the hilsa fishery may provide higher daily incomes than when fishing for many other species. 3.2 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS AND MANAGEMENT Table 22: Summary table for Principle 1 Hilsa shad Principle 1 Country Stock status Outcome Reference points Principle 1: Stock status Stock rebuilding if necessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Harvest strategy Information and monitoring Assessment UoA MM Stock * BD Stock * IN Stock * Source: Poseidon. MM = Myanmar, BD = Bangladesh, IN = India Stock status/outcome Stock status For the purpose of this assessment, we have assumed that there is a single stock of hilsa shad in the Bay of Bengal (see Section on page 50 for more discussion). Hilsa are a robust and productive species by nature (see the PSA in Table 17, also Section 3.1.1) but are under intense regional fishing pressure. The limited studies to date suggest that that hilsa are almost certainly over exploited in both West Bengal (Nath et al, 2010) and Bangladesh (Milton, 2010), mainly due to the high levels of juvenile exploitation during their estuarine and riverine migration phase, mainly by small mesh gillnets. There are also suggestions that the productivity of the Bangladesh hilsa population appears to be declining. The cause of this decline is unclear and a more detailed ecosystem wide analysis would be required to identify the key ecosystem components or services that may be affecting hilsa productivity. It is important to recognize that the Ganges/Brahmaputra and Irrawaddy deltas are all subject to considerable environmental change, largely stemming from over abstraction of water within the watershed as a whole, a large numbers of pollution points within the river system as well as a physical barrages that is likely to further inhibit recruitment success (Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 2010; Bill Collis, WorldFish Bangladesh, pers. comm., 2010). In summary, the stock status of hilsa in the Bay of Bengal is considered weak. However, given its inherent productivity, it should respond rapidly to robust conservation measures embedded in a regional recovery plan. Reference points Although various estimates of B MSY have been calculated, mainly based on large lengthfrequency (L F) analyses (see Amin, 2008 & Milton, 2010), no biomass based reference points have been utilized for management of hilsa stocks in the Bay of Bengal. The main reference point that has been adopted in Bangladesh is the exploitation rate (E). This has been calculated since 1995 where it has varied between 0.55 and 0.66 up to Given the complexities involved in measuring hilsa abundance, the current length frequency based Page 56

70 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal stock assessments used in Bangladesh are a realistic and practical approach given data limitations. Despite this, it is considered that the current use of reference points is weak, and that considering that this is considered a single stock for management purposes the development of regional management reference points for this stock would be a useful management approach. Stock rebuilding Despite the acknowledged recruitment over fishing of the hilsa stock, there is no evidence that the stock is currently depleted e.g. the stock has been driven by over fishing to the level that there is a drastically reduced spawning stock biomass and reproductive capacity. India does not currently have a rebuilding plan, although a National Plan of Action has been developed by CIFRI in Barrackpure (Singh & Sharma, 2008) but is yet to be implemented. Bangladesh has been implementing a Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan (HFMAP) since about 2003 with some notable success. Regional conservation work is addressed both by BOBP IGO and BOBLME. As the stock is not yet at a stage where it needs rebuilding, this PI was not scored for any of the fisheries. However it is recognized that a regional stock conservation and recovery plan is required (see stock status elements above) Harvest strategy / stock management Performance of harvest strategy Bangladesh has a defined harvest strategy within the Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan (HFMAP) and is based on the understanding that recruitment is being compromised by over fishing of juveniles in riverine areas and it is necessary to respond to this in a practical way that recognizes the socio economic dependencies that have evolved to the fishery, and the difficulties of enforcement (requiring a strategy based on ban period that is relatively easy to monitor compared to other potential strategies). The main elements of the strategy spatial and temporal protection of critical spawning grounds as well as precautionary minimum mesh sizes are well proven but there is some concern over the adequate scale of the former and compliance levels with the latter. As such, Bangladesh s harvest strategy is scored as intermediate. Neither India nor Myanmar have an effective strategy to reduce fishing effort or mortality. Both have minimum mesh size rules and India has a seasonal marine fishing ban, but these measures are not sufficient to effectively manage the fisheries and both are scored weak as a result. Harvest control rules and tools Bangladesh has a reasonably comprehensive set of management rules and tools, including mesh restrictions, juvenile fishing bans, spatial bans in spawning areas and closed hilsa nursery areas (see box below). Page 57

71 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Box 11: Hilsa harvest control rules and tools in Bangladesh The harvest control tools essentially consist of the following: 1. Mesh size restrictions (>90 mm except for current nets which are 100mm) 2. No fishing of juveniles (e.g. fish <30 cm) 3. Complete fishing ban for 10 days in four spawning locations during 5 days before & 5 days after the first full moon of the peak spawning season in 4 spawning grounds of approx. 7,000 km². 4. Four hilsa nursery areas: a. Shatnol of Chandpur district up to Char Alexander of Laxmipur district, about 100 km area of the lower Meghna estuary (closed 1 March 30 April). b. Madanpur/Char Ilisha up to Char Piyal of Bhola district, about 90 km area of the Sahabazpur channel and tributary of the Meghna River (closed 1 March 30 April). c. Veduriya of Bhola district up to Char Rustum of Patuakhali district, about 100 km area of the Tetulia river, sanctuary (closed 1 March through 30 April). d. 40 km area of the Andharmanik river of Patuakhali district (closed 1 November 31 January). e. A fifth area is currently being proposed in Shariatpur. Milton (2010) concurs that spatial and temporal controls like those described above are more likely to work in terms of stock management than controlling fishing effort directly. However, whilst the approach is likely to work, there is a considerable lag period between estimating yields, matching exploitation rates and then expanding management measures. As such, Bangladesh s harvest strategy implementation is scored as intermediate. As mentioned above, apart from minimum mesh size restrictions, neither India nor Myanmar have any harvest control rules in place for hilsa and have been scored as weak in this respect. Information and monitoring In all three countries monitoring of fishing effort and yields is hampered by the wide geographic spread of numerous, largely small scale fishers targeting hilsa and other pelagic species in marine, estuarine and freshwaters, as well as the limited resources dedicated to information collection. In India this situation is further compromised by the apparent overlap between central and state level data collection, especially regarding hilsa research. In Myanmar information on both gear wise data collection and domestic landings is limited. Bangladesh suffers from similar logistical challenges, but with the need to feed information to the on going HFMAP, appears to have greater information on gear wise CPUEs and length frequency at capture. Stock assessment There is an inadequate assessment of hilsa stocks in either India s West Bengal nor Myanmar. Using the Risk Based Framework (RBF) this would normally be scored a default Intermediate status. However given the lack information on which to base a stock assessment and the lack of management drivers to demand an assessment of this stock, stock assessment is scored as weak in both countries. In Bangladesh, researchers have undertaken several stock assessments of hilsa based on analysis of large samples of fish length frequencies. Page 58

72 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Although only one of these analyses adjusted the data for gill net selectivity, the results were remarkably consistent (see table in the Bangladesh country report). This approach is not rigorous and thus the estimated exploitation rates are highly uncertain and would not form the basis of management changes in most situations. However, alternative more rigorous stock assessment approaches require an index of hilsa abundance. These data are not available and are unlikely to be reliably collected in any of the countries in the region. Thus, the stock assessments of Bangladesh scientists probably provide the only realistic indicators of hilsa population status in Bangladesh. Page 59

73 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 3.3 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEMS As outlined earlier in the methodology, Principle 2 examines the ecosystem impacts of the individual fisheries in terms of their retained and discarded bycatch, interactions with endangered, threatened or protected species, the habitat and the wider ecosystem structure and function. The table overleaf (Table 23) shows the assessments made for each indicator across all countries in the region. As these potential impacts are directly related to the type and nature of the fishing gears involved, this analysis is conducted at gear level. As can be seen from this table there are seven fisheries considered in the country reports. To simplify the analysis, we have categorized these as follows: Broad gear category 1. Small mesh (<60 mm) gill nets & stow nets (India, Bangladesh & Myanmar). Mainly freshwater. 2. Larger mesh (>60 mm) gillnets (India & Bangladesh). Mainly estuarine & marine. Gear / country combination Gillnets (min. 12 mm) India Gillnets (<60 mm) Bangladesh Gillnets (25 65 mm) Myanmar Stow nets Myanmar Gillnets (>85 mm) India Gillnets (>60 mm) Bangladesh 3. Purse seine (Myanmar). Marine. Purse seines Myanmar It should be stated that, due to the wide range of mesh sizes used and the different gear setting configurations, there is very little detailed information on the impacts of these gears, especially the gillnets. The following analysis is based on both discussions in country with researchers, managers and fishers, as well as a review of published literature Retained bycatch Retained bycatch are the species retained by the fishery (with the exception of the species under assessment, hilsa) because they are commercially valuable or because they are required to be retained by management rules. Small mesh (<60mm) gill nets & stow nets (India, Myanmar & Bangladesh) Status These small mesh nets tend to be used in the freshwater river channels and operated by artisanal fishers in non motorized boats. Whilst hilsa is a high value catch, this is very much a mixed fishery with a wide spectrum of target species. Due to the small meshes used, they are non selective and are likely to catch a high proportion of juvenile or immature fish. As they are often used in smaller channels, there is a high level of encounterability and thus these gears are extremely effective. Given their non selective nature they are likely to contribute to recruitment overfishing of both hilsa and other species. Management These gears are difficult to manage as they are extensively used by small scale fishers in all three countries. The main form of management is through minimum mesh size restrictions which are largest in Bangladesh (90 mm), Myanmar (6.5 or 63 mm) and India (12 mm, with a seasonal 25mm restriction). However these restrictions are widely ignored with inadequate enforcement. Page 60

74 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 23: Summary table for Principle 2 Hilsa Principle 2 Country Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discards status Discards management Discardsinfo / monitoring Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem management UoA MM Gill nets & river mouth MM Stow net in river MM Purse sea BD Gill nets 40 60mm BD Gill net mm IN Gill nets min 12mm IN Gill nets min 85mm Source: Poseidon. MM = Myanmar, BD = Bangladesh, IN = India Ecosystem info / monitoring Page 61

75 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Information/monitoring Information on catches and landings varies between countries. In both India and Myanmar, marine landings are reasonably well known, but freshwater landings are less well estimated. In Bangladesh the opposite situation exists, with poor marine landing records, but a better understanding of freshwater landings. In all cases there is very little ability to estimate catches by gear type, thus complicating the targeting of management efforts. Larger mesh (>60mm) gillnets (India & Bangladesh) Status These larger mesh gillnets tend to be used by hilsa specialists in large river, estuarine and marine environments. Although there is little information on their selectivity, it is likely that they will restrict catches to larger fish, with lower bycatches of juveniles and immature fish. Management Again mesh size is the key management approach and tends to be more robustly implemented in marine waters e.g. an 85mm limit in India and 90mm in Bangladesh. Given that fishers tend to have larger, motorized vessels landing in main centers, the degree of compliance is likely to be much higher than in freshwaters. Information/monitoring Information on catches and landings varies between countries. In both India and Myanmar, marine landings are reasonably well known, but freshwater landings are less well estimated. In Bangladesh the opposite situation exits, with poor marine landing records, but a better understanding of freshwater landings. In all cases there is very little ability to estimate catches by gear type, thus complicating the targeting of management efforts. Purse seine (Myanmar) Status There are no published statistics on the species wise landings from purse seine nets in Myanmar, but the PSA suggests that this gear is of low risk to hilsa stocks. Management There is seasonal closure for 3 months during May July to protect spawning grounds. There is no other effective management of the small pelagic purse seine fishery. The minimum mesh size of 1 inch is not appropriate to control the volume or size of fish landed and juveniles are expected to be landed in high proportions to enter the fish supplement and fish oil trade. The effect on recruitment for these small pelagic species due to high juvenile catch rates is unknown. There are no other controls over the size of fish landed or the volumes landed. Information/monitoring Export data has been provided. However, no accurate landings data is available reporting both exported and domestically consumed volumes. It is not possible to determine catch composition for the purse seine fleet landing small pelagics. Page 62

76 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Discarded bycatch All gears Status Although not recorded, it is highly likely that discards from these fisheries are negligible. As such, they do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to any species group. Management Discards from these fisheries are understood to be non existent. As a result no bycatch minimization management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. Information/monitoring No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature has been carried out. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk based sampling programme ETP species interactions Small mesh (<60 mm) gill nets & stow nets (India, Myanmar & Bangladesh) Status There is a high degree of biodiversity in the freshwater riverine and floodplain systems where these small mesh gillnets are operated. These include a number of species that are formally considered as endangered, threatened or protected, including freshwater turtles, fish and riverine dolphins. There has been very little work done in all three countries on the interactions between gillnet fisheries and freshwater ETP species. There is likely to be considerable potential for such interactions, although this will depend upon the location, gear configuration and design. Management Relatively little management attention has been placed on reducing ETP interactions in freshwater gillnet and stow net fisheries. This is a result of the lack of knowledge of the extent and consequences of these interactions, the large and diverse fisheries involved, and the socio economic dependence of rural communities on such fisheries resources. Information/monitoring As mentioned above, there has been very little investigation into the scale or consequences of interactions between these freshwater fisheries and ETP species. Larger mesh (>60mm) gillnets (India & Bangladesh) Status The main ETP species at risk from larger mesh gillnets are sea turtles, cetaceans, dugongs and vulnerable shark species. Sea turtles have been highlighted as of concern off the East coast of India (especially the State of Orissa) for some time, and there is an increasing awareness of their vulnerability in Bangladesh (especially St. Martin s Island) and Myanmar. Page 63

77 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal However there is virtually no information from any of the three countries on the levels of interaction between the estuarine and marine large mesh gillnet fisheries, although the WWF India s Sundarban Programme indicates no reports to ETP species being at risk from hilsa gillnet fisheries (Ratul Saha, WWF India Sundarbans Programme, pers. comm., 17 Oct. 2010; T.K. Chatterjee, pers. comm., 25 Oct., 2010). However the drifting gillnets deployed from large mechanized boats from Cox s Bazaar and Chittagong are one of the major sectors that have been attributed as responsible for turtle by catch (Rashid 1997), although it is not known whether these are targeting hilsa or other marine species. Management Sea turtles are formally protected in India and proposed for protection in Bangladesh. Conservation of marine turtles has not received high priority in Bangladesh, where scientific publications and systematic surveys have only appeared in the recent past. There are also a number of spatial protected areas for sea turtle nesting areas in all three countries, including shark sanctuaries in the Mergui Archipelago of Myanmar. Information/monitoring As mentioned above, there has been very little investigation into the scale or consequences of interactions between these freshwater fisheries and ETP species. Purse seine (Myanmar) Status Potential purse seine interaction with ETP species is likely to be limited to dolphins and turtles, both of which are released alive prior to hauling nets. A high survivability rate (>90%) is expected. In addition a risk assessment in the Pacific Ocean (Kirby, 2006) indicates that sharks are the highest risk group in purse seines at greatest risk are the low fecundity silky shark, short finned mako, porbeagle, and oceanic whitetip rather than the more fecund blue sharks and hammerheads. These shark species are at more risk from the tuna fisheries than the small pelagic fisheries since they often trail schools of tuna for prey. Overall the risk of the small pelagic purse seine fishery is of intermediate concern, based primarily on shark interactions. Management There are closed areas in inshore locations specifically to protect turtles when they are returning to breed. The locations of these areas are unknown. The Myeik Archipelago Islands have large areas closed to fishing, primarily to protect coral reef habitats, but this also acts to protect ETP species in this area. No management is known to reduce interactions with sharks. Information/monitoring Data on the presence and distribution of ETP species around the Myeik Archipelago Islands is well understood and protection of this area is regarded as having high national importance. However, data for ETP species outside this area are limited, with the exception of turtle breeding areas which have informed closure of certain locations. Data on specific purse seine interactions with ETP species is lacking. In particular observer data to monitor shark bycatch in Myanmar fisheries is rare and effort should be focused to address this issue across the fleet. Page 64

78 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Habitat interactions All gillnets and stow nets Status Habitat interactions with these gillnets are minimal, especially in marine and estuarine areas where they are surface set and do not touch the bottom. In faster flowing river and estuarine areas some gears and/or boats may be fixed to the ground causing temporary and low level physical impacts. However, due to the highly dynamic nature of these environments (e.g. fast and chasing currents, high sediment loads, etc) it is highly unlikely that these impacts will be significant in terms of damage to aquatic biodiversity. The loss and discarding of monofilament gillnets may be very high, with potential for high rates of persistence and ghost fishing in the riverine environment. Stow nets tend to be fixed in position for a long period of time and therefore do not have a large footprint of habitat impact. Although operated in high tidal conditions, lost gears are considered highly unlikely. Management At present there are no habitat management measures in place, nor is there any known reason why this might be necessary, esp. given the dynamic nature of the environment involved. No management structure exists to control the potential loss of gear e.g. due to rigging and gear failure. Nor is there a code of practice for gear retrieval or reporting of lost gear incidents. Information/monitoring There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of the main habitats in the fishery areas, although this has not been extensively studied. The spatial distribution of fishing effort is reasonably well known, although not formally recorded. The dynamic nature of the riverine system and its changeable nature is also known and is periodically recorded. The nature of the impacts of these gears on the habitat are not known, but given the dynamic nature of the environment, the risk posed is likely to be low, but could nevertheless be further verified. Purse seine (Myanmar) Status Habitat impacts from this surface pelagic fishery are highly likely to be minimal. Lost gear is rare, although the occasional FAD is lost. Management Due to minimal impact, management strategies are not necessary. Information/monitoring As with ETP species, the extent and location of important habitats including coral reefs, sea grass beds and mangroves are well understood for the areas surrounding the Myeik Archipelago Islands. Information is generally lacking for other areas. Page 65

79 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem impacts Small mesh (<60 mm) gill nets & stow nets (India, Myanmar & Bangladesh) Status The main issue with these fisheries are their low level of size selectivity. As a result they have high catch rates of juvenile fish, especially in the river and estuarine areas. This is likely to have consequences for fish and other populations within the lower watershed in terms of a depleted prey population and possible implications on recruitment, notwithstanding the high natural mortality of many species involved. Stow nets, with a mesh size of 12 mm and high levels of effort are likely to be particularly destructive. Other than the target species it is unknown what other species are removed from the ecosystem by this gear. The overall impact on the ecosystem is therefore difficult to determine. There is no ecosystem modeling to predict impacts within these estuarine and riverine environments. Therefore at present, it is not possible to say that the existing fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to the point where there will be serious and irreversible harm. Management In India there is little evidence of an ecosystem based strategy for hilsa fisheries management, although this is embedded into the as yet unimplemented National Plan of Action for Hilsa. The State management of small scale freshwater fisheries are, for understandable reasons, focused on livelihoods maintenance, but this has resulted in conflicts with enabling long term ecosystem based fisheries management approaches. The measures adopted minimum mesh sizes and seasonal fisheries bans are insufficiently focused or adequate in scale to address the potential impacts of this fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. The Bangladesh HFMAP, whilst focused on the conservation of hilsa, does little to restrain the impacts of this fishery on the overall ecosystem, although it should reduce the level of fishing mortality on other small and juvenile species potentially impacted by this fishery. In order to manage the ecosystem impacts of these fisheries more work is required to determine the impact of removing 300, ,000 t of a mid trophic level species from an albeit highly productive ecosystem, as well as reducing bycatch levels of non target species. Information/monitoring CIFRI in India has conducted a number of studies into the riverine and estuarine environments of the wider Ganga/Meghna delta and, importantly, the impact of environmental change (e.g. pollution and reduced water flow) on these. As a result it is possible to identify the key elements of the ecosystem. In addition, considerable work has also been conducted by BFRI to identify key spawning and nursery habitats in the Meghna river system, which has been an essential step in creating spatial protection of recruiting fish. The main impacts of the fishery, especially on the target fish stock can be inferred from research to date. However it is not possible to determine the impacts of this fishery (in particular those smaller mesh gears) on the population dynamics of retained bycatch species. Page 66

80 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Larger mesh (>60mm) gillnets (India & Bangladesh) Status Whilst the selectivity of the larger mesh gillnets has not been studied in detail, it is likely that these gears have a relatively low bycatch in terms of both number of species as well as a much more limited size range that mainly encompasses larger, mature fish. As such, their impact is largely restricted to target species such as hilsa and the wider ecosystem impacts are therefore more limited. Management As discussed for small mesh gillnets above, steps have not been taken to manage the hilsa fisheries at an ecosystem level. The Bangladesh HFMAP and the proposed National Plan of Action for Hilsa in India both include some elements of an ecosystem approach but also need to examine the impact of these fisheries on stocks of other retained bycatches species, ETP interactions with the hilsa fishery and its impact on the ecosystem as a whole e.g. the trophic impacts of removing large quantities of a mid level trophic species from the marine and riverine ecosystems. Information/monitoring The main impacts of the fishery, especially on the target fish stock can be inferred from research to date. However it is not possible to determine the impacts of these fisheries on the population dynamics of retained bycatch species. Purse seine (Myanmar) Status The fishery catches a wide range of species including high rates of juveniles, which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is no ecosystem modeling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. Management No specific ecosystem management measures are undertaken at national level. However, there are closed areas for habitat protection and turtle management measures. Current levels of removals of small pelagic species are not considered to be heavily over exploited; furthermore most small pelagic species have a short population doubling time. Despite this, management of the indirect effect of removing target and retained species from the food web requires management measures, which would also be applicable for retained species. Information/monitoring Total removals are not well known for Myanmar fisheries. There is little information on the ecological impacts of this fishery and ecosystem modeling has not been undertaken. Page 67

81 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 3.4 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERIES GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Table 24 provides a summary of the assessment of performance for Principle 3 indicators, relating to both the general governance and policy framework (i.e. the broad, high level context of the fishery management system within which the fisheries are found), and also to fishery specific management (noting that specific management rules are covered under P1 and P2). As there is no regional management of Hilsa at the present time, even though stocks are shared the assessments have been completed on a national basis, rather than assessing policy and management at a regional level. Table 24: Summary table for Principle 3 Hilsa Principle 3 Country other UoA if necessary Legal customary framework Governance & Policy Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long term objectives Principle 3: Governance & Management Incentives for Fishery specific sustainable objectives fishing Decisionmaking processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan MM GN, SN, PS BD GN, GN IN GN, GN Source: Poseidon. MM = Myanmar, BD = Bangladesh, IN = India Governance and policy Legal and customary framework Fishery specific management Comments made on the legal and customary framework in Section 2 on Indian mackerel, are also broadly relevant to hilsa management in Myanmar and India. Bangladesh, which was not included in the Indian mackerel assessments, performs particularly well against this indicator (and subsequent indicators under Principle 3 as will be seen). In Bangladesh, the National Fisheries Strategy (2006) is guided by the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, and by international agreements signed by the government. The management framework observes traditional rights, and the 2006 National Fisheries Strategy has specific text on pro poor which recognizes the need to ensure that the poor retain their traditional rights to the resources through community leasing (inland) or allocation of fishing rights (marine). Disputes and conflicts certainly exist within the fishery (e.g. between industrial trawlers and inshore net fisheries), but levels of participation in decision making, and the National Task Force for hilsa management and sub level committees at Upazila and Union level serve as a mechanism for resolution of conflict. Where conflict cannot be resolved through such measures, systems of arbitration and legal recourse through the courts are reported to be available. Consultation, roles and responsibilities Consultation, roles and responsibilities in West Bengal in India, are perhaps slightly better articulated than in Tamil Nadu, hence why this indicator is scored as intermediate for West Bengal. There are 350 blocks (the administrative unit under the districts) in West Bengal and the Fisheries Department has a block development officer (BDO) in each one. Each block may cover 3 4 panchayats. The Fisheries Department also has extension officers working under the BDOs, and fisheries inspectors (responsible for both collecting data and enforcement). Thus, while not always working perfectly, there is generally a good flow of local information and knowledge from the catching sector to the government. In addition to Management performance evaluation Page 68

82 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal a regular flow of information from ongoing activities and responsibilities, the Fisheries Department has also been engaged recently in a number of specific ad hoc research studies to obtain information on the hilsa fisheries in estuarine/inland areas. The department also regularly runs awareness and consultation camps with fishers. Hilsa management in Bangladesh also performs well against this indicator, as show in the Box below (see Box 12). Box 12: Consultation, roles and responsibilities for hilsa management in Bangladesh There is a provision in law that if rules and regulations are to be amended, the Department of Fisheries (DoF) must seek public opinion on any proposed changes. It is also mandatory for the DoF to invite local Members of Parliament and Upazila chairmen to awarenessbuilding campaigns about hilsa management measures. Hilsa management committees meet regularly and generally on a monthly basis, with a national level Task Force typically meeting on an annual basis. Roles and responsibilities of all those involved in the management process are clear and well articulated: The Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock has responsibility for policy making; DoF for management implementation (and the Fisheries Resources Survey System for the monitoring of catches); the Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (BFRI) for fisheries research; the Coast Guard for enforcement up to 15 km from the shore; the Navy for enforcement outside of 15 km; the police for arrest and prosecutions; and two major fishermen s associations represent the interests of fishermen. The roles and responsibilities of the hilsa management Task Force (which includes representatives of all those listed above) is also clear, with specified working mechanisms. Long term objectives In Bangladesh, DoFs mission is to support sustainable [author s emphasis] growth in fish and shrimp production., and the 2006 Strategy has a specific section on long term objective planning. It is also clear that with the introduction and implementation of the hilsa management plan, long term objectives focusing on sustainability are now a driving force in the overall governance and policy framework. Likewise, performance against this indicator is good in West Bengal, where long term objectives are much more clearly articulated than in Tamil Nadu. The Fisheries Department publishes Annual Reports, which serve to guide activities. These reports are often not widely available in hard copy and there exists a time lag in their publication, but they nonetheless appear to be used to guide the management activities of the fisheries department, as well as to report on activities. The most recent Annual Report states policy and management objectives relating to sustainability and the precautionary approach, refers to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the national 11 th 5 year plan which also mentions similar objectives. Detailed information for Myanmar is less available, but it is understood that there are long term objectives for the management of Myanmar s fisheries and their environmental sustainability with high level objectives presented under Fisheries 2020, but that these objectives are not hilsa fishery specific. Despite an assessment of good performance against this indicator in West Bengal and in Bangladesh, all three countries should be cognizant of the need for explicit and carefully articulation of policy trade offs as highlighted in Section Page 69

83 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Incentives for sustainable fishing Positive incentives for sustainable fisheries e.g. gear selectivity, rights based mechanisms, are not thought to be provided in either Myanmar or West Bengal at the present time, while negative incentives potentially contributing to fleet capacity/effort in the form of fuel subsidies are. Thus performance is weak for this indicator for the units of assessment in both West Bengal, and in Myanmar. Bangladesh, by contrast, provides a good example of positive incentives for sustainable fishing that might be replicated in other areas (see Box 13). Box 13: Incentives for sustainable hilsa fishing in Bangladesh A critical aspect of compliance with management measures that are now in place to protect jatka/juvenile fish is ensuring that livelihoods are not too adversely affected by the fishing ban periods. The DoF has in place a number of mechanisms which can be viewed as positive incentives for compliance with the fishing ban periods, and therefore of overall sustainability they include the provision of 30 kg rice / month / fishing family, and microcredit support to fishermen for alternative livelihood activities in non fishing activities. There are no fuel subsidies provided to gillnet hilsa fishermen (only to the trawl sector based on a rationale that it generates foreign exchange and therefore deserves special support), or any other negative subsidies of any note which might serve to increase capacity in the hilsa fleet Fisheries specific management systems Fishery specific objectives There are not thought to be any fishery specific objectives in Myanmar for hilsa, so the units of assessment in Myanmar are scored as weak. In Bangladesh, the detailed BFRI papers underpinning the formal DoF hilsa management plan have clear objectives in support of sustainability, and the resulting management measures put in place aim to ensure that the exploitation is under 50% of the stock biomass (e.g. the exploitation rate is 0.50). At present the exploitation rate is above 0.6 and thus needs to be further reduced, but there are nonetheless implicit fishery specific management objectives and the units of assessment are therefore scored as good. Performance for this indicator in West Bengal lies somewhere in between that for Myanmar and Bangladesh. There is, as yet, no specific fisheries management plan for hilsa fisheries, and no clearly articulated fishery specific objectives for hilsa fisheries. However, objectives of sustainability are somewhat implicit in the ongoing work of the fisheries department which has included awareness camps on hilsa sustainability and management issues, the overall objectives as stated in the Annual reports, and the regulatory ban period designed to protect spawning stocks. The Department also expresses a willingness to learn from the recent developments in hilsa management in Bangladesh, and hilsa is now given a high priority in the State having been declared a State fish. Decision making processes There are not thought to be any fishery specific decision making processes in Myanmar for hilsa, so the units of assessment in Myanmar are scored as weak. Performance for this indicator in West Bengal is rated as intermediate. Consultation processes provide a strong Page 70

84 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal basis for bottom up participatory decision making, and these decision making processes are established and are beginning to respond to the serious issue of resource depletion, while recognizing the difficulty of imposing regulations that will have short term livelihoods impacts on fishers. However, it cannot yet be claimed that decision making is resulting in strategies and measures to achieve sustainability. Fishers appear to generally agree with, and be supportive of, the hilsa fishing ban period. But reaching agreement on increases in minimum mesh sizes or closed areas may be more problematic, and the fishery remains one of open access. Again, hilsa management in Bangladesh performs well against this indicator, as described in the Box below (Box 14). Box 14: Decision making processes in Bangladesh As already noted, there is generally good consultation and decision making process in place for the specification of hilsa management measures, and a provision in law that if rules and regulations are to be amended, the Department must seek public opinion. These decision making processes, and indeed compliance with regulations, are supported by an extensive programme of awareness campaigns through both print and electronic media. The DoF has a number of television slots each year at critical periods, and uses well known personalities/actors to convey fisheries management messages. Ideas about management decision making are well supported by research scientists and their outputs, with good research policy management linkages. This is facilitated through an annual two day BFRI workshop, attended by DoF staff, at which BFRI reports on all past/ongoing research activities, and makes proposals for future research activities which might generate research outputs in support of DoF decision making. The most recent workshop (October 2010) coincided with the visit of the consultants to Bangladesh, and the consultants observed some sessions of the workshop and noted that participation included around 100 BFRI and DoF staff. Compliance and enforcement Performance against this indicator is rated as intermediate in all three countries, and in all units of assessment. There are not thought to be any fishery specific fisheries control planning in Myanmar for hilsa, but compliance activities do take place. In West Bengal, there are few regulations to enforce at the present time, but even so MCS activities are not well funded, are insufficient and are not well able to control fishing activity. This is especially the case in inland areas (18 districts), where enforcement relies on fisheries inspectors operating under the statistical wing of the Department, local police, and local administrations. Recent research by the Department revealed that many fishermen were infringing regulations, primarily due to the socio economic difficulties of abiding by them, coupled with the lack of effective enforcement. Typical infringements included the use of very small mesh size mosquito nets and the sale of undersized fish. Marine fishing activity is generally easier to control due to the presence of seven major fishing harbors, strong marine fishing associations, and close relationships between these associations and the Department. On the positive side, the West Bengal fisheries department is actively engaged with improvements in compliance and enforcement, in particular through Page 71

85 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal education and awareness campaigns, and in the provision of financial support during ban periods in an effort to increase compliance. In Bangladesh, in 2005 the government delegated powers of implementation of rules under the Marine Fisheries Ordinance to the DFOs of coastal districts, but in the absence of technically capable marine fisheries staff at district and Upazila levels, the system has not always worked well. MCS in marine areas is strongly focused on the industrial trawl fishery, and a lack of effort/input control has led to a huge expansion of unregulated gillnet activity by the uncontrolled numbers of mechanized and non mechanized artisanal fishery in the marine sector. Compliance and enforcement in marine areas is not helped by the fact there is only one surveillance check post where vessels can be inspected as they report out/in. The lack of regulation and control over vessel numbers and licensing also applies to the inland/estuarine areas. Other key weaknesses in the enforcement of regulations appear to be the local police force and local magistrates, who may not apply penalties that could be enforced for infringements. And while food security support is provided (as already discussed), there remain very strong livelihood and financial incentives not to comply with regulations, due to the low socio economic status of many fishermen. However, there are also some notable strengths in the compliance and enforcement system, which are hilsa specific in Bangladesh. These are presented in the Box below. Box 15: Decision making processes in Bangladesh In inland areas, the seasonal fishing bans in nursery areas and the 10 day spawning ban period are reported to be quite well enforced, with effective Coast Guard activities (which also operates in estuarine/inland areas). Support for MCS activities is also programmed into the DoF budget, and DoF provides finances to the Coast Guard and other relevant parties to conduct enforcement activities. There is also reported to be a National Action Plan for MCS (DoF, 2009), and the Coast Guard reports on its activities each year to the hilsa management National Task Force, and gains approval of activities for the coming year. The public awareness activities mentioned above also serve to support compliance. In all countries, sanctions for infringements include the seizing of both nets and catch, which bearing in mind the low socio economic status of fishermen can be considered a considerable deterrent, if enforced. Myanmar and West Bengal would also benefit from the suggestions made in Section on the need for documented, risk based MCS plans, so as to better use scarce financial and human resources. Research plan There is not thought to be any fishery specific research plan in Myanmar for hilsa, so the units of assessment in Myanmar are scored as weak. In West Bengal, as is the case Tamil Nadu, performance for this indicator is scored as intermediate; there are very many high qualified and experienced fisheries researchers in the various research institutions but no hilsa (or small pelagic) fisheries specific research plan, and there remain considerable research gaps. Research plans to the extent that they exist at all, are the annual research plans/budgets prepared by the research institutions (the Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute [CIFRI] operating under the Council of Agricultural Research, and the Aquatic Resources Health Management Centre [ARHMC] operating under Page 72

86 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal the Department of Fisheries), rather than research plans justifying particular research topics and explaining their link to management needs. There is also rather poor collaboration between the two main research organizations. In Bangladesh, the BFRI annual workshop highlighted above is used to present results, and discuss and agree future activities (but is not hilsa specific). This workshop, coupled with annual budgetary planning, serves to provide the basis for a research plan. The process itself, and the working relationships between BFRI and DoF staff also appear to suggest relatively good linkages between research and management. BFRI has more than 50 PhD scientists, many of them trained overseas through previous donor funded projects at high quality research institutes and universities, so human capacity for research is generally good. However, there are some notable weaknesses in hilsa research. There is a very strong focus in the country on aquaculture research, and many of the qualified research staff with strong hilsa knowledge are now nearing retirement age. The numbers of younger staff receiving good training has drastically declined, and there are therefore concerns about the lack of a new cohort of research scientists entering government employment. There is also no hilsa specific research plan documented. Management performance evaluation There is not thought to be any fishery specific evaluation in Myanmar for hilsa (as there is no hilsa specific management plan), so the units of assessment in Myanmar are scored as weak. In India, performance is intermediate. There is no formal assessment of the impact of any management regulations for hilsa or small pelagics, and no fishery specific management plan to evaluate. There are however various internal evaluation mechanisms in place in the Department of fisheries whereby staff at State level monitor district level staff and their activities. Monthly meetings take place at State level to monitor the activities of district level activities, and monthly meetings take place at district level to monitor the activities of the block officers. In addition, where the Ministry of Agriculture at national level provides funds for specific activities, evaluators/monitors from the Comptroller auditor general periodically check on the implementation of activities in terms of both budget expenditure and effectiveness. In Bangladesh, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the hilsa management plan appears to be quite robust. There is good M&E of hilsa management strategies through an annual workshop on jatka management, to which all stakeholders are invited, and feedback includes research results, the views of fishers and Upazila committees which submit reports, a report by the Coast Guard their activities, etc. This is followed by a controlling workshop with the Minister of Fisheries and Livestock and other stakeholders, which makes recommendations for improvements/changes. The annual BFRI research workshop also serves as a useful M&E mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the hilsa management plan. There is also more general ongoing M&E through the activities of the hilsa management Task Force and the various sub level committees, which typically meet on a monthly basis. Thus the system of monitoring the performance of the hilsa management system is both regular and frequent. Given the participatory nature of the M&E and broad range of stakeholders involved, it can also be viewed as being both internal and external i.e. it provides for M&E by those not directly involved in implementation of the management system itself. Page 73

87 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 3.5 CONCLUSIONS KEY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES As evidenced from the two tables below (Table 25 and Table 26), and similar to the findings in the Indian mackerel assessments, there is a wide variety of performance against the different indicators between the different countries and units of assessment. There is perhaps particular concern over Principle 1, where indicators of hilsa stock status, and the specific harvest/management strategy, generally provide considerable cause for concern (although less so in Bangladesh than in other countries). Performance against Principle 2 is a little more positive, but again, considerable weaknesses exist in the status of some critical habitats, endangered species, and retained bycatch species. On a positive note is the fact that there are virtually no discards in the fisheries assessed. For Principle 3, with respect to the overall governance and policy framework, while some improvements would be useful, performance against the indicators is generally reasonable for the legal and customary frameworks in place, the levels of consultation and the clarity in the roles and responsibilities of those involved in management, and the nature of long term objectives (save for a failure to resolve conflicting policy objectives and a strong emphasis on production increases). As with Indian mackerel, of special concern however for hilsa management is the continued use of subsidies which serve to increase fishing capacity/effort. However unlike Indian mackerel, in some of the hilsa fisheries assessed there are also some positive incentives provided for greater sustainability in the form of social and financial support to reduce the need for fishers to fish for hilsa at particularly important times of the year or in particularly sensitive locations. Like Indian mackerel however, there are no positive incentives in place in the form of support for gear selectivity or rights based mechanisms. Performance against the fisheries specific management system displays a rather different picture to the Indian mackerel assessments, primarily because hilsa is such an important fish in economic terms, especially in Bangladesh. Thus there is generally a much greater level of specification of hilsa specific objectives, decision making process, research plans, MCS strategies, and performance evaluation. Performance in Bangladesh is particularly encouraging for most P3 indicators, and many lessons can be learned from this country for wider applicability within the region. Table 25: Average scores by Principles Hilsa Country Unit of Assessment P1 average P2 average P3 average Gill nets & river MM mouth MM Stow net in river MM Purse sea 1.13 BD Gill nets 40 60mm BD Gill net mm IN Gill nets min 12mm IN Gill nets min 85mm Source: Poseidon. MM = Myanmar, BD = Bangladesh, IN = India Page 74

88 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 26: Summary assessment for all Principles and indicators Hilsa Principle 1 Country Principle 1: Stock status Outcome Harvest strategy Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding if necessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment UoA MM Hilsa 1 0 * BD Hilsa 0 0 * IN Hilsa 0 0 * Principle 2 Country Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discards status Discards management Discardsinfo / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem management UoA MM Gill nets & river mouth MM Stow net in river MM Purse sea BD Gill nets 40 60mm BD Gill net mm IN Gill nets min 12mm IN Gill nets min 85mm MM Purse seine Ecosystem info / monitoring Principle 3 Country other UoA if necessary Principle 3: Governance & Management Governance & Policy Fishery specific management Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery specific objectives Decisionmaking processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation Ranking MM GN, SN, PS Good BD GN, GN Intermediate IN GN, GN Weak Source: Poseidon. MM = Myanmar, BD = Bangladesh, IN = India Page 75

89 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE INTEGRATION OF THE FINDINGS INTO THE BOBLME PROJECT 4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS In this synthesis report recommendations have been prepared at a regional level. Although they have emerged from the eight country reports, those presented here apply across the different fisheries and are intended to address common issues and reflect the fact that both Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries are connected within the BOBLME region. Countryspecific recommendations can be found in the eight country reports in Appendices C J. Three sets of findings are presented: 1. Recommendations specific to the Indian mackerel fisheries; 2. Recommendations specific to the hilsa shad fisheries; and 3. Recommendations that are generic across the region and not applicable to any fishery in particular Indian mackerel Conservation and Management The Indian mackerel is an important small pelagic species for both small scale and industrial fisheries in much of the Bay of Bengal. Whilst there may be a degree of reproductive isolation, considerable mixing occurs at both the juvenile planktonic stage as well as later in adult life and it appears that the entire Indian Ocean population consists of a single stock and needs to be managed as such. Based on the analysis of the different national Indian mackerel fisheries in Section 2, we have formulated the following recommendations to address the main weaknesses identified. As discussed above, these recommendations are made with regional action in mind. This said, there are particular areas of overlap of fishing interests between BOB nations, including between SW India (Tamil Nadu) / Sri Lanka gillnet fisheries and Myanmar / Thailand purse seine and trawl fisheries. Therefore, whilst a regional approach to managing this wide ranging stock is appropriate, further bi lateral initiatives may be required for some particular fisheries. Recommendations: Stock management Regional stock assessment: although it is a productive and resilient species, the Indian mackerel stock is under considerable fishing pressure and considered to be over fished through most of the region. However information on stock status comes largely from CPUE based fisheries data and there is a need to use fisheriesindependent data to improve the knowledge of both adult biomass as well as recruitment (and its variability) of juveniles into the fishery. It would also be beneficial to use increasingly affordable DNA techniques to improve knowledge of the stock s genetic structure and the possibility of the presence of distinct subpopulations. Development of a regional fisheries management plan for Indian mackerel. Ideally this should be at stock level e.g. the whole of the Indian Ocean, but could be considered at the sub oceanic regional level e.g. Arabian Sea and BoB regions, so long as it accounts for recruitment and fishing mortality outside of the management Page 76

90 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal area. Fisheries Management Plans are usually set over 3 5 years (FAO, 2003) with a shorter cycle of management implementation and review at the operational level. This Indian mackerel Regional Fisheries Management Plan should, using the precautionary principle where necessary, develop the following: o Overview of the fishery: participants, location, landings / markets / value, consultative process, management approaches, international considerations o Stock status: biology, environment, habitat, species interactions, stock assessment, research and prospects o Management objectives for the fishery: establishment of reference points (target and limit 10 ) for key measurable indicators such as spawning stock biomass, spatial distribution, age structure, recruitment, by catch levels, fishing capacity, etc. o Decision rules: a series of decision rules based upon the management objectives of the fishery and more particularly, on pre established reference points. In effect, allows fisheries managers to say what action should be taken when a certain indicator level is reached e.g. when the number of boats in the fishery reaches x, no further licenses will be issued for a period of y months or when the spawning stock biomass reaches the reference limit, the fishery will be closed for z months. o Current management measures: established for the short term and reviewed periodically e.g. annually, might include fishing seasons, closed areas, quota allocations, licensing restrictions and other relevant elements. o Enforcement strategies: prioritization of MCS issues to develop objectives and strategies, inc. surveillance techniques by sea, land and air, enforcement of technical measures e.g. mesh sizes, by catch reduction methods, observer trips, and awareness building and education. Development of an Indian mackerel recovery plan: In the event that Indian mackerel stocks should show an unacceptable decline, (e.g. a reference indicator drops below a pre agreed limit), a recovery plan should be developed to restore depleted populations: o This might include a revision of the management measures being used over the short and medium term (see above), including the imposition of temporary capacity limits, or restricted fishing areas and periods as well as possible gear restrictions. o The plan should have specified recovery targets over time. o Where there is a lack of scientific information or uncertainty, the recovery plan should be precautionary in its outlook. Investigation into the impact of climate change on Indian mackerel stock dynamics and distribution. Recent research in India has demonstrated the influence of seawater temperature changes and nutrient availability on the stock distribution and behavior of this species and the fundamental impact this is having on coastal fishing 10 The target reference point is the desired state of the indicator and the limit reference point is the boundary beyond which it is undesirable to go Page 77

91 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal populations. A greater understanding of this, and application to other parts of the Bay of Bengal, would assist fisheries administrations in targeting the relative abundance of this species. Recommendations: Ecosystem based management Whilst discards are not an issue in these fisheries, the varying levels of juvenile bycatch are, as greater control over this issue would provide better adult recruitment into the fishery as well as improving spawning stock biomass. o Joint regional review of mesh sizes used in Indian mackerel gillnet fisheries to investigate mesh sizes that improve selectivity for target species and reduce the capture of juvenile large pelagics such as seer fish and carangids. Following this review, if necessary some gear selectivity studies might be conducted in high risk gillnet fisheries to both determine mesh sizes that perform well as well as provide supporting evidence for developing technical measures (such as minimum mesh sizes) where required. o The mesh sizes and other technical parameters could also be reviewed for other gear types targeting Indian mackerel. Purse seines and bottom trawls are already used to catch this species in many countries, with the former (inc. ring seines) gaining popularity in India in particular. Although purse seines are usually fairly selective gears, they are extremely efficient so some form of effort limitation may need to be considered in response to the need for harvest controls (see previous section). Improved conservation and management of shark species. Although some BOB countries have developed national plans of action (NPOAs) for sharks e.g. Thailand and Malaysia, in some of the other countries they are still in early stages of development. Therefore assistance should be provided possibly through joint workshops and other fora to develop national plans and progress towards a regional plan of action (RPOA). The latter approach is a necessary progression, but will need to consider the wider issues of the Indian Ocean, such as tuna longline and purse seine fishing. However there are advantages in a RPOA, including building on the Maldivian and Myanmar examples of spatial restrictions and bans on shark catching, as well as more robust regional agreements on technical measures such as finning restrictions. We note that a separate BOBLME activity will be looking at fisheries management plans for sharks. Improved conservation and management of ETP species. Whilst interactions between Indian mackerel fisheries and ETP species are not particularly widespread and serious, a number of gear types do present problems such as large mesh gillnets (which tend to entangle larger animals more than smaller mesh multifilament nets), non TED equipped bottom trawl nets and some purse seines. The level of interactions varies widely within the region, but is more serious in Indonesian waters as well as adjacent to key turtle rookeries, such as along the Indian Orissa coast. Therefore improved levels of harmonization between BOB countries in adopting both technical measures to reduce ETP mortalities (e.g. greater adoption of TEDs) as well as a wider network of spatial and seasonal protection is required. Page 78

92 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Improved habitat protection: although most Indian mackerel fisheries are pelagic in nature with limited direct impact on the seabed, there are a couple of issues that need addressing: o Improved legislation and, critically, enforcement capacity to prevent bottom trawling in inshore or otherwise vulnerable areas. There is wide variation in approaches (e.g. distances / depths where bottom trawling is banned) and the use of marine protected areas to protect areas of high biodiversity or productivity. o Improvements to the marking and anchoring of fishing gear to reduce the level of loss and abandonment and subsequent interactions with the seabed and its inhabitants. Improved knowledge of trophic impacts from Indian mackerel fisheries: the largescale removal of this albeit highly productive small pelagic species could be further investigated as a longer term priority. In particular it might be useful to examine its predator prey relationships, especially with other commercial species in order to assess the impact of the Indian mackerel fishery on other important fisheries and vice versa. Such work could be conducted in association with parallel work to examine the impact of climate change on species productivity and distribution. Modeling approaches such as SEPODYM (Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model) Box 16: Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model SEPODYM is a model developed initially for investigating spatial tuna population dynamics under the influence of both fishing and environmental effects. The main features of this model are: (i) forcing by environmental data (temperature, currents, primary production and dissolved oxygen concentration), (ii) prediction of both temporal and spatial distribution of mid trophic functional groups, (iii) prediction of both temporal and spatial distribution of age structured predator populations, (iv) prediction of total catch and size frequency of catch by fleet when fishing data (catch and effort) are available, and (v) parameter optimization based on fishing data assimilation techniques (see Senina et al., 2008). The associated modeling of sea temperature rise, its pattern within natural cyclical variability and the impact on the recruitment, growth and distribution of tunas has received increasing attention and is one of the main applications of SEPODYM. Recommendations: Policy development and fisheries management See Section 4.2 (Non fisheries specific recommendations). Page 79

93 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Hilsa shad conservation and Management The hilsa shad is also a highly productive species that provides large volume (but mainly small scale) fisheries in West Bengal (India), Bangladesh and Myanmar. Its predictable migratory behavior makes it particularly vulnerable to fishing, esp. during the ascending riverine phase, but this does make it equally suitable for targeted management actions. Given that the main fisheries all take place in the northern part of the Bay of Bengal, and that these are prosecuting what is essentially a single stock, regional coordination of hilsa management is particularly important. It is also key to understand that whilst fisheriesrelated management is obviously vital, it is also evident that wider ecosystem conservation and management is also very essential, as the overall productivity of these large floodplain / delta systems is affected by water sharing and management, water quality and the impact of pollution as well as the longer term effects of climate change. Recommendations: Stock management Regional stock assessment: the hilsa shad stock is under considerable fishing pressure and considered to be over fished. Again like Indian mackerel, information on stock status comes largely from CPUE based fisheries data and there is a need to use fisheries independent data to improve the knowledge of both adult biomass as well as recruitment (and its variability) of juveniles into the fishery. Further fisheriesindependent verification of both spawning stock biomass is required, possibly though biomass surveys during the marine phase. Other information such as the age structure of hilsa as well as the size composition of different fisheries would also assist develop current fisheries dependent models. Development of a regional fisheries management plan for hilsa shad. This should be at stock level, which could be reasonably limited to those fish utilizing the main river systems bordering the BoB in India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. This Hilsa Shad Regional Fisheries Management Plan should, using the precautionary principle where necessary, develop the following: o Overview of the fishery: participants, location, landings / markets / value, consultative process, management approaches, international considerations o Stock status: biology, environment, habitat, species interactions, stock assessment, research and prospects o Management objectives for the fishery: establishment of reference points (target and limit 11 ) for key measurable indicators such as spawning stock biomass, spatial distribution, age structure, recruitment, by catch levels, hilsa escapement rates, fishing capacity, etc. o Decision rules: a series of decision rules based upon the management objectives of the fishery and more particularly, on pre established reference points. In effect, allows fisheries managers to say what action should be taken when a certain indicator level is reached e.g. when the number of boats in the fishery reaches x, no further licenses will be issued for a period of y months or when annual escapement rates drop below the minimum reference limit, the fisheries will be closed for z months. 11 The target reference point is the desired state of the indicator and the limit reference point is the boundary beyond which it is undesirable to go Page 80

94 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal o Current management measures: established for the short term and reviewed periodically e.g. annually, might include fishing seasons, closed areas, quota allocations, licensing restrictions and other relevant elements. o Enforcement strategies: prioritization of MCS issues to develop objectives and strategies, inc. surveillance techniques by sea, land and air, enforcement of technical measures e.g. mesh sizes, by catch reduction methods, observer trips, and awareness building and education. Development of an Hilsa shad recovery plan: In the event that the hilsa shad stock should show an unacceptable decline, (e.g. a reference indicator drops below a preagreed limit), a regional recovery plan should be developed to restore depleted populations: o This might include a revision of the management measures being used over the short and medium term (see above), including the imposition of temporary capacity limits, no or restricted fishing areas and periods as well as possible gear restrictions. o The plan should have specified recovery targets over time. o Where there is a lack of scientific information or uncertainty, the recovery plan should be precautionary in its outlook. Harmonization of existing and proposed national / regional Plans of Action: Bangladesh currently has a Hilsha Fisheries Management Action Plan (HFMAP) and India is developing a National Plan of Action (NPOA) for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of Hilsa Fisheries. Furthermore there have been a number of consultations on preparing a Regional Plan of Action (RPOA) for hilsa management in the Bay of Bengal through the BOBP IGO. It is essential that these various plans are harmonized at the national 12 and regional levels to reduce institutional competition that is an ineffective use of finite financial resources and can confuse fishers and other stakeholders. Recommendations: Ecosystem based management Whilst discards are not an issue in these fisheries, the varying levels of juvenile bycatch are, and greater control over this issue would provide better adult recruitment into the fishery as well as improving spawning stock biomass. o Joint regional review of mesh sizes used in hilsa gillnet fisheries to investigate mesh sizes that improve selectivity for target species and reduce the capture of juveniles (both hilsa and other target species). Following this review, if necessary some gear selectivity studies might be conducted in high risk gillnet fisheries to both determine mesh sizes that perform well as well as provide supporting evidence for developing technical measures (such as minimum mesh sizes) where required. o Bio economic modeling of different mesh size / net configuration combinations to optimize the minimum daily economic catch per fisher, 12 It is noted that in India fisheries management takes place at both central and state levels. It is our view that agreement on the roles of the different state government (e.g. of West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu) and central government organizations (e.g. CMFRI & CIMFRI) need to be carefully and objectively considered in order to avoid the apparent disconnect observed in field work (see Appendix D). Page 81

95 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal maximize the overall profitability of the fishery while accounting for sustainability by estimating the total length of net the hilsa population can sustain. Improved conservation and management of ETP species. It appears that virtually nothing is known about the level of interactions between hilsa gillnet fisheries and ETP fisheries in either the marine or freshwater phases of their life cycle. It is recommended that: o A risk assessment is conducted to determine in what circumstances interactions might take place and to assess the potential impact on ETP species populations. This might require some field assessments, esp. of the larger mesh gillnets at sea (e.g. sea turtle interactions) as well as with gillnets in the smaller river systems (where interactions with freshwater turtles and other fauna / avifauna). o If the risk assessment does show interactions that threaten the status of ETP species, then it should be used to develop ETP mitigation and management measures to reduce these in high risk fisheries. Improvements to the marking and anchoring of fishing gear to reduce the level of loss and abandonment and subsequent interactions with the sea/riverbed and its inhabitants. Improved habitat mapping: the merits of spatial protection are increasingly evident and it is recommended that a regional programme develops both a harmonized approach as well as compatible outputs (in the form of a regional Geographic Information System, GIS) to identify critical habitats such as spawning and nursery grounds to assist with development of spatial protection zones. This GIS could also integrate catch distribution in the marine, estuarine and freshwater reaches of the main rivers in order to further optimize temporal and spatial closures to reduce total catch by the desired amount. This database could also integrate other factors such as water quality indices in order to fine tune management approaches. Improved knowledge of trophic impacts from hilsa fisheries: the large scale removal of this albeit highly productive pelagic species could be further investigated as a longer term priority. In particular it might be useful to examine its predator prey relationships, especially with other commercial species in order to assess the impact of the hilsa fishery on other important fisheries and vice versa. Improved linkages with watershed management: there is a need to build upon CIFRI s research into the linkages between the wider decline in watershed status (e.g. seasonal water flows, water quality, etc), the productivity of hilsa and the impacts on the livelihoods of rural communities dependent upon hilsa (and other) fisheries. This should lead to a more integrated level of watershed management planning, including wide ranging (inc. trans boundary) impact assessments when considering major interventions such as barrages and water sharing agreements. This information can also be used to fine tune productivity susceptibility analyses. Recommendations: Policy development and fisheries management See Section 4.2 (Non fisheries specific recommendations). Page 82

96 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 4.2 NON FISHERIES SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the fisheries specific recommendations provided above, the assessments also revealed a number of weaknesses across the region which are outlined below. Improved consistency and harmonization of fisheries statistics collection. The development of stock assessments and management approaches depends upon robust reporting of catches and landings. This needs to be disaggregated where possible to gear type, vessel class, sea area of capture and point of landing. This will require harmonization of both data collection approaches as well as data storage and distribution protocols. Landing and market input data improvement: In addition to the improved and harmonized statistics systems recommended above, there is a need to improve data collection on local landings and inputs into the domestic market. This could include some system to register first point buyers (see Box 3 on page 28 for example). If considered appropriate, the approach would need to be developed to take into account the particular value chain and distributional structure of the Bay of Bengal countries. Greater participation of the private sector in information provision: there is great potential for the private sector to become more involved in fisheries research and reporting in a variety of ways. This includes improved recording and submission of fish catches and discards, ETP interactions as well as assistance in reducing infringements against management measures. Development of longer term objectives: a core part of a sound fisheries management policy is to have clear long term objectives. Essentially these determine what the purpose of the fishery is and how this can be maintained over the longer term. Many of the BOB countries have either the immediate maintenance of coastal livelihoods or fisheries productivity as their main policy directives, but these frequently conflict with longer term sustainability objectives. It is therefore recommended that a review of national policies explores this in order to balance social and resource management objectives. Removal of bad subsidies: many well meaning financial incentive schemes that are aimed at poverty alleviation also serve to maintained or even increase fishing capacity above sustainable levels. Such subsidies need to be reviewed in terms of their impact on the resource base. Less obvious incentives to fish with unsustainable gear, such as the demand for trash fish, also need examining and adjustments made to national and regional policy where appropriate. This should also be applied to disaster relief schemes, such as that after the 2004 tsunami, which have again, however well intentioned, increased fishing capacity to unsustainable levels. Updating of fisheries laws: there is a general need to revise existing fisheries laws to better support fisheries management, reflect recent international developments and the need for regional action. One example is the need to embed approaches for dispute resolution to be enshrined in law, especially as coastal populations grow and increase the risk of dispute over finite fisheries and other resources. Improved risk based Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) approaches: enforcement activities could be much improved if documented risk based MCS plans Page 83

97 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal were prepared annually focusing on locations, seasons, and stakeholders felt to be of special concern in terms of compliance. Such plans could also help to further articulate roles and responsibilities of those engaged in enforcement activities, and could at some stage in the future incorporate regional initiatives such as joint deployment plans. Improved, priority based research planning. In many countries research plans to the extent that they exist at all, are purely the annual research plans/budgets prepared by the research institutions, rather than research plans justifying particular research topics and explaining their link to management needs. This is an issue at two levels: (i) firstly there is little coordination of research into Indian mackerel stock levels and biology within the region and thus much scope for duplication and (ii) at a wider level there is often a wide gap between the information needs of fisheries managers and the research agendas of fisheries scientists. This is particularly so for small pelagic stocks like Indian mackerel, with research focus often on more iconic (and thus often better funded) species such as tuna. In some countries there is also a much stronger focus on aquaculture, which has often been at the detriment of marine capture fisheries. This balance needs to be addressed at both policy level as well as in terms of the institutional mechanisms for linking fisheries science with fisheries management information needs. Increased human capacity development, especially at local administration level. Whilst decentralization of governance can have its advantages and is the core of many national development strategies, its effectiveness may be limited by both (i) limited human capacity at local level and (ii) poor institutional coordination between central and local levels. Establish regional centers of excellence for different fisheries science and management topics: it is evident from our visits that there is some good fisheries science and management capacity in the region. There is considerable potential to share this expertise within the region. It is suggested that key capacity building topics are identified and acknowledged regional centers of excellence proposed. Regional partnerships can then be developed to capitalize on existing regional experience and knowledge and to further harmonize common stock management. The centers of excellence approach is one of the mechanisms advocated by FAO s Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (FAO, 2004). Page 84

98 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 4.3 SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION OF FINDINGS INTO THE BOBLME PROJECT This report has been commissioned as part of the BOBLME Component 2, Subcomponent 2.3 (Collaborative regional fishery assessments and management plans). The ultimate objective of this sub component is to develop regional (or where appropriate, subregional) fisheries management plans for three key shared stocks e.g. Indian mackerel, hilsa shad and sharks. This sub component will also see essential supporting but non fisheries specific goals of the harmonization of data collection and standardization to promote collaborative fisheries management approaches. The table overleaf provides a summary of the findings, sub divided into those for (i) Indian mackerel, (ii) hilsa shad and (iii) non fisheries specific activities. For the two fisheries, the main activity will be the preparation of Regional Fisheries Management Plans, which includes a sub set of eight actions in both cases. In addition to these FMPs are a series of supporting activities to improve gear selectivity, to manage ETP interactions, improve habitat protection and to increase the knowledge of the impact of these fisheries on the wider Bay of Bengal ecosystem. In effect we are proposing that the FMPs are accompanied by activities that provide an ecosystem based approach. The non fisheries specific recommendations are divided into four main elements: (i) Policy development, (ii) information support, (iii) fisheries control and (iv) human capacity development. In each case we have suggested the priority of response required, the most appropriate partner countries, supporting partners and the BOBLME component(s) involved. In terms of the priority, we consider all the recommendations necessary but those with high priority should be addressed first. We have also suggested partner countries and supporting partners as a starting point these will need verification through the BOBLME process in due course. Finally most of the actions belong to BOBLME sub component 2.3. However there are a number of actions that cross cut with other BOBLME sub components and these are identified. Page 85

99 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Table 27: Summary of recommendations Activity Action Priority Partner countries * INDIAN MACKEREL Regional Fisheries Management Plan Gear selectivity studies Supporting partners National assessment of fisheries consolidated into a regional overview High All BOBLME countries FAO 2.3 Characterization of stock status, inc. options for stock reference points High All BOBLME countries Regional stock assessment studies High LK, IN, MM, TH, MY, ID 2.3 Workshops to agree management objectives, inc, establishment of preliminary reference points (to be periodically reviewed) Development of national management measures to be harmonized at regional level. High LK, IN, MM, TH, MY, ID 2.3 High LK, IN, MM, TH, MY, ID 2.3 Development of enforcement strategies at national and regional levels. Medium LK, IN, MM, TH, MY, ID 2.3 Development of a precautionary Indian Mackerel Recovery Plan Medium LK, IN, MM, TH, MY, ID 2.3 BOBLME component(s) Investigate impact of climate change on Indian mackerel stock dynamics Low LK, IN, MM, TH, MY, ID 2.3 / 3.1 Regional review of information on gillnet selectivity for small pelagic species in the Indian mackerel fishery High LK, IN, MY, ID 2.3 Field studies to address information gaps Medium LK, IN, MY, ID 2.3 Development of recommendations for optimal mesh sizes and gillnet rigging configurations, tested with bio economic modeling where necessary. Conduct similar studies for other gears catching Indian mackerel e.g. ring nets, purse seine and bottom trawl High LK, IN, MY, ID 2.3 Medium IN, MM, TH, MY, ID 2.3 ETP species Harmonization of NPOAs and RPOAs on shark conservation and management Medium All BOBLME countries 2.3 Harmonization of both technical measures to reduce ETP mortalities as well as a wider network of spatial and seasonal protection Medium All BOBLME countries 3.2 Habitat protection Improved legislation and enforcement capacity Medium All BOBLME countries 2.3 Improved knowledge of trophic impacts from Indian mackerel fisheries Improvements to the marking and anchoring of fishing gear Low All BOBLME countries 2.3 Development of trophic modeling of the Bay of Bengal to determine predator / prey relationships and the impact of fishery removals on the food web, inc. other commercial stocks and species (in combination with hilsa shad studies, but will be restricted to marine waters) Spatial population modeling to examine the impact of climate change on species productivity and distribution. Low Open 2.3 / 3.1 Low Open 2.3 / 3.1 Page 86

100 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Activity Action Priority Partner countries * HILSA SHAD Regional Fisheries Management Plan Gear selectivity studies Supporting partners National assessment of fisheries consolidated into a regional overview High IN, BD, MM FAO 2.3 Characterization of stock status, inc. options for stock reference points High IN, BD, MM 2.3 Regional stock assessment studies High IN, BD, MM 2.3 Workshops to agree management objectives, inc, establishment of preliminary reference points (to be periodically reviewed) Development of national management measures to be harmonized at regional level. High IN, BD, MM 2.3 High IN, BD, MM 2.3 Development of enforcement strategies at national and regional levels. Medium IN, BD, MM 2.3 Development of a precautionary hilsa shad Recovery Plan Medium IN, BD, MM 2.3 Harmonization of existing and proposed national / regional Plans of Action High IN, BD, MM 2.3 Regional review of information on gillnet selectivity for hilsa shad fisheries High IN, BD, MM 2.3 Field studies to address information gaps Medium IN, BD, MM 2.3 Development of recommendations for optimal mesh sizes and gillnet rigging configurations, tested with bio economic modeling where necessary. Medium IN, BD, MM 2.3 ETP species Risk assessment for ETP interactions with hilsa fisheries Medium IN, BD, MM 2.3 Guidelines for ETP mitigation and management measures in high risk fisheries Medium IN, BD, MM 2.3 BOBLME component(s) Habitat protection Improvements to the marking and anchoring of fishing gear Low IN, BD, MM 2.3 GIS based mapping of critical hilsa habitats, fishing pressure and Medium IN, BD, MM 2.3 / 3.2 environmental conditions. Improved knowledge of trophic impacts from hilsa fisheries Development of trophic modeling of the Bay of Bengal to determine predator / prey relationships and the impact of fishery removals on the food web, inc. other commercial stocks and key stone species (in combination with Indian mackerel studies, but will include a freshwater component) Low IN, BD, MM 2.3 / 3.1 Improved linkages with watershed management High IN, BD, MM 2.3 / 4.1 / 4.2 Page 87

101 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Activity Action Priority Partner countries * Supporting partners BOBLME component(s) NON FISHERIES SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES Policy Development of longer term objectives for fisheries sector development High All BOBLME countries 2.3 / 2.2 development Removal of bad subsidies to the fisheries sector Medium All BOBLME countries 2.3 / 2.2 Information support Improved, priority based research planning High All BOBLME countries 2.3 Improving consistency and harmonization of fisheries statistics collection High All BOBLME countries 2.3 Improving landing and market input data provision Medium All BOBLME countries 2.3 Increasing private sector role in fisheries information provision Medium All BOBLME countries 2.3 / 2.1 Fisheries control Updating and harmonization of fisheries laws Medium All BOBLME countries 2.3 / 2.2 Improved risk based Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Medium All BOBLME countries 2.3 approaches Human capacity Increased human capacity development, especially at local administration High All BOBLME countries 2.3 development level Establish regional centers of excellence for different fisheries science and management topics Medium All BOBLME countries 2.3 / 3.3 * Country codes: MD Maldives; LK Sri Lanka; IN India; BD Bangladesh, MM Myanmar; TH Thailand; MY Malaysia; ID Indonesia Page 88

102 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix A: References This Appendix provides references for the main summary report text only. Additional references used in the compilation of each country Appendix, are provided in Annexes to the country Appendices. Barnett, L.A.K., Quaranta, K.L., Ebert, D.A., White, W.T. & Compagno, L.J.V. (2008). Glyphis siamensis. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Baum, J., Clarke, S., Domingo, A., Ducrocq, M., Lamónaca, A.F., Gaibor, N., Graham, R., Jorgensen, S., Kotas, J.E., Medina, E., Martinez Ortiz, J., Monzini Taccone di Sitizano, J., Morales, M.R., Navarro, S.S., Pérez, J.C., Ruiz, C., Smith, W., Valenti, S.V. & Vooren, C.M. (2007). Sphyrna lewini. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. (2006). Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version BirdLife International (2009). Puffinus pacificus. Puffinus tenuirostris, Puffinus carneipes. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M., Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. (2007). Carcharhinus falciformis. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Cailliet, G.M., Cavanagh, R.D., Kulka, D.W., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A., Clo, S., Macias, D., Baum, J., Kohin, S., Duarte, A., Holtzhausen, J.A., Acuña, E., Amorim, A. & Domingo, A. (2004). Isurus oxyrinchus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version CIFRI (2008). Molecular genetics of Tenualosa ilisha and a few ornamental fishes. CIMFRI Leaflet. Retrieved from on 12 Oct Compagno, L.J.V. (2005). Himantura fluviatilis. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Compagno, L.J.V., Cook, S.F., Oetinger, M.I. & Fowler, S.L. (2006). Anoxypristis cuspidata. Pristis microdon, Pristis zijsron. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Compagno, L.J.V., White, W. & Fowler, S. (2003). Carcharhinus hemiodon. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Cook, S.F., Compagno, L.J.V. & Last, P.R. (2006). Pristis clavata. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Day, F. (1873). Report on the Freshwater Fish and Fisheries of India and Burma. Calcutta: pp. 22, 23, Denham, J., Stevens, J., Simpfendorfer, C.A., Heupel, M.R., Cliff, G., Morgan, A., Graham, R., Ducrocq, M., Dulvy, N.D, Seisay, M., Asber, M., Valenti, S.V., Litvinov, F., Martins, P., Lemine Ould Sidi, M., Tous, P. and Bucal, D. (2007). Sphyrna mokarran. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Page 89

103 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Devaraj, M and Mohamad Kasim, H and Muthiah, C and Pillai, N G K (1999). Assessment of the exploited seerfish stocks in the Indian waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India, 41 (1 & 2). pp Donohue, M. J. & Schorr, G. (2004). Derelict Fishing Gear & Related Debris: A Hawaii Case Study. In Derelict Fishing Gear and Related Marine Debris: An Educational Outreach Seminar among APEC Partners. APEC Seminar on Derelict Fishing Gear and Related Marine Debris, January 2004, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA Dulvy, N.K., Pasolini, P., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. Serena, F., Tinti, F., Ungaro, N., Mancusi, C. & Ellis, J.E. (2006). Rostroraja alba. In: IUCN 2010 FAO (1983) Collette, B.B. and C.E. Nauen, FAO species 1983, catalogue. Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue o f tunas, mackerels, bonitos and related species known to date. FAO Fish.Synop., (125)Vol. 2: 137 p. FAO (2003). The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 2. FAO, Rome, 1996, 54p FAO (2004). Report of the First Session of the Working Party on Human Capacity Development in Fisheries. Rome, April FAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research. 47 pages. See ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5568e/y5568e00.pdf FAO/GEF (2005). Bay of Bengal: Sustainable Management of the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project Document. Fishbase (2010). Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta. Ghosh, A.N., Bhattacharya, R.K. and K.V. Rao (1968). On the identification of subpopulation of Hilsa ilisha (Hamilton) in the Gangetic system, with a note on their distribution. Proc. nat. Inst. Sci. India (B), 34(1): Goldman, K.J., Baum, J., Cailliet, G.M., Cortés, E., Kohin, S., Macías, D., Megalofonou, P., Perez, M., Soldo, A. & Trejo, T. (2007). Alopias vulpinus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Grobois, A. and Plotkin, P. (2008). Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Haldar, G. C. and M. A. Rahman (1998). Ecology of Hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha (Hamilton). In: Proceedings of BFRI/ACIAR/CSIRO Workshop on Hilsa Fisheries Research in Bangladesh held on 3 4 March 1998 at Bangladesh agricultural Research Council, Dhaka, Bangladesh (ed. M.A. Mazid and S.J.M. Blaber), Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, BFRI proceedings Series No. 6: Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. (2008). Tursiops aduncus, Stenella longirostris In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Hussain, M. G., Salini J. P., Islam M. S. and M. A. Mazid (1998). Genetic structure of hilsa shad populations: Preliminary results using starch gel allozymes. In: Paper presented in the International Workshop on Progress of Hilsa Fisheries Research Proceedings (edited by M.A. Mazid and S.J.M. Blaber) of BFRI/ACIAR/FSIRO Workshop on Hilsa Fisheries Research in Page 90

104 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Bangladesh, held on 3 4 March, 1998 at BARC, Dhaka, Bangladesh. BFRI Proceedings Series No. 6: Hutomo, M., Nontji, A. & Dirhamsyah (2009). Regional Coastal Resources and Environment Profile for ASEAN Region. Institute for Science of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. IUCN (2010). Delphinus capensis, Dugong dugon, Natator depressus, Pristis pectinata, Puffinus heinrothi, Pterodroma ultima, Pterodroma externa IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Jayasankar et al (2004). Morphometric and Genetic Analyzes of Indian Mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) from Peninsular India. P. Jayasankar, P.C. Thomas, M.P. Paulton and J. Mathew Asian Fisheries Science 17 (2004): Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M. J. (1998). The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2006). Confronting Shark Conservation Head On! TRAFFIC International. UNEP/CMS/MS/Inf8 Macfadyen, G.; T. Huntington, and R. Cappell (2009). Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No Rome, UNEP/FAO p Marine Research Centre (2007). Ministry of Fisheries, Agriculture and Marine Resources, Maldives Status of the Shark Fisheries in the Maldives' Exclusive Economic Zone. Marine Turtle Specialist Group (1996). Caretta caretta. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Martinez, S.A.L. (2000). Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Milton, D.A. (2010). Status of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) management in the Bay of Bengal: an assessment of population risk and data gaps for more effective regional management. Report to FAO Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project, 15 February pp. Milton, D.A. and S.R. Chenery (2001). Can otolith chemistry detect the population structure of the shad hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha? Comparison with the results of genetic and morphological studies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 222: Mojumdar, C. H. (1939). Foreshore fishing in the eastern parts of the Bay of Bengal. Sci. and Cult., 5(4): 219. Mortimer, J.A & Donnelly, M. (2008). Eretmochelys imbricata. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version MSC (2009). Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies Including Default Assessment Tree and Risk Based Framework. Muthiah, C and Kasim, H M and Bhat, S Uma (2000). Exploited seerfish fishery resources of India A review. In: Marine Fisheries Research and Management. Pillai, V N and Menon, N G,(eds.) CMFRI; Kochi, Kochi, pp Pillay, S. R. H. Rosa Jr. (1963). Synopsis of biological data on hilsa, Hilsa ilisha (Hamilton) FAQFish B/al. Synops., (25): 1: 1 6 :38. Page 91

105 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Pillay, S.R., K.V. Rao & P.K. Mathur (1962). Preliminary experiments in the tagging of Hilsa, Hilsa ilisha (Hamilton). (MS). IPPC 10th Session document IPFC/C62/TECH 12. Pillay, T.V.R., S.R. Pillay & K.K. Ghosh (1963). A comparative study of the populations of the hilsa Hilsa ilisha (Hamilton) in Indian Waters. CMFRI, 1963 Preston, G. (2004). Review of the status of shared/common marine living resource stocks and stock assessment capability in the BOBLME region. Rahman, M.A., M. Emran & Md. Shirajul Islam (2010). Hilsa Fisheries Management in Bangladesh. Regional Consultation on Preparation of Management Plan for Hilsa Fisheries. Chittagong, Bangladesh, 7 8 February Report to the Bay of Bengal Programme Inter Governmental Organisation (BOBP IGO). BOBP IGO/RC HF2/5. pp. 16 Reeves, R.R., Jefferson, T.A., Karczmarski, L., Laidre, K., O'Corry Crowe, G., Rojas Bracho, L., Secchi, E.R., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y. & Zhou, K. (2008). Sousa chinensis. Orcaella brevirostris. Neophocaena phocaenoides In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Salini J.P., Milton, D.A., Rahman M.J. and M.G. Hussain (2004). Allozyme and morphological variation throughout the geographic range of the tropical shad, hilsa Tenualosa ilisha. Fish Res 66: Senina, I., Sibert, J., Lehodey, P. (2008). Parameter estimation for basin scale ecosystemlinked population models of large pelagic predators: application to skipjack tuna. Progress in Oceanography 78, Seminoff, J.A. (2004). Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Singh, S.N. and A.P. Sharma (2008). India National Plan of Action (NPOA) For Conservation and Management of Hilsa Fisheries. Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute (ICAR), Barrackpore Kolkata , W.B., India Southwell, T. and B. Prashad (1918). On Hilsa investigations in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Ibid., 11: UNEP (1996). Dugong Status Report and Action Plans for Countries and Territories. White, W.T. & McAuley, R. (2003). Rhinobatos typus. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version White, W.T. (2006). Aetobatus flagellum, Aetomylaeus maculates, Aetomylaeus vespertilio. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version White, W.T., Fahmi & Dharmadi (2008). Lamiopsis temmincki. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Page 92

106 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix B: The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles. Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management system to fulfil Principles 1 and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations. The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below. Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 13 : The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favor of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Criteria: 1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long term potential yields within a specified time frame. 3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity. Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. Criteria: 1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes. 13 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations Page 93

107 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long term potential yields. Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. A. Management System Criteria: 1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. The management system shall: 2. Demonstrate clear long term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishingdependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process. 3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings. 4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability. 5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. 7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty. 14 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification. Page 94

108 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 8. Incorporate a research plan appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion. 9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted. 10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to: a) setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species; b) identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimize adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas; c) providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames; d) mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached; e) establishing no take zones where appropriate. 11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are. B. Operational Criteria Fishing operation shall: 12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non target species (and non target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimize mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive. 13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimize adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas. 14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives; 15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on board spoilage of catch etc. 16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements. 17. Assist and co operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery. Page 95

109 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Risk based Framework The risk based framework (RBF) was designed for use in association with the Default Assessment Tree for Principles 1 and 2 presented. The RBF was adopted by MSC to enable scoring of fisheries in data deficient situations, particularly for the outcome performance indicators (PIs) associated with Principles 1 and 2. If it is determined by the assessment team that there is insufficient data to score a given outcome PI using the default scoring guideposts, the risk based framework can be used as an alternative means of assessment. Page 96

110 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix C: Country Report Bangladesh

111 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Country Report: Bangladesh Undertaken by 711-REG

112 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION PEOPLE MET INDIAN MACKEREL CURRENT INFORMATION AND STATUS OF THE FISHERY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SUPPORT BY THE BOBLME PROJECT FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS HILSA HILSA IN BANGLADESH DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE RISK ASSESSMENT ENVIRONMENT PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Assessment Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Assessment Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses SUMMARY HILSA ANNEX 1: REFERENCES Tables and Figures TABLE 1: MAIN GEARS CATCHING HILSA, THEIR CPUES AND AREAS STUDIED... 7 TABLE 2: RISK ASSESSMENT FOR HILSA IN BANGLADESH TABLE 3: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR HILSA IN BANGLADESH FIGURE 1: MAP OF BANGLADESH... 1 FIGURE 2: MAJOR SPAWNING GROUNDS OF HILSA IN THE MEGHNA ESTUARY... 5 FIGURE 3: HILSA CATCHES IN BANGLADESH, 2000/01 TO 2008/ FIGURE 4: DAILY CATCH RATE FOR MECHANIZED GILLNET VESSELS... 8 FIGURE 5: GILLNET FISHERMEN, BANGLADESH... 9 FIGURE 6: EXPLOITATION LEVELS OF HILSA IN BANGLADESH ( ) FIGURE 7: GILLNET VESSELS IN KALINODI... 21

113 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Acronyms BFRI BOBLME BRD CIFRI CPUE CSIRO DoF ETP FAO FRSS IOTC M&E MCS PCSL PSA RBF SEFDEC SICA TED Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Bycatch reduction device Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute (India) Catch Per Unit of Effort Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Department of Fisheries Endangered, Threatened and Protected (species) Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations) Fisheries Resources Survey System Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Pathways Consulting Services Ltd. Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis Risk Based Framework Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Scale, Intensity and Consequences analysis Turtle exclusion device

114 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Appendix focuses on an assessment of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries (stock status, ecosystems impacts, and management), and related recommendations. The hilsa assessment is presented in Section 3 of this Appendix. An overview of the available information and current knowledge is however also provided for Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) in Section 2 of this Appendix. Indian mackerel is a species of very minor importance in Bangladesh, with catches currently estimated at less than 100 tonnes per year. Information on the fishery is lacking and there is no specific management of the species, and no targeted fishery (Indian mackerel is caught in small quantities as bycatch in industrial trawl fisheries, and as bycatch of small-scale gillnet fisheries). There are signs however that the fishery may become increasingly important in the future if stocks move northwards as has been suggested (Vivekanandan, 2005), and as the importance of small pelagic species grows as Bangladesh fishes down the food chain (WorldFish, 2008). As a result, an assessment of this species at the present time is neither appropriate nor possible. However, as suggested by stakeholders in Bangladesh 1, this Appendix presents the limited information on Indian mackerel that is available, along with some recommendations for BOBLME actions in relation to this species, as stakeholders are keen for the project to support the generation of additional knowledge. Figure 1: Map of Bangladesh 1 Meeting by the consultants with DoF staff and the BOBLME national coordinator, on 11 th October Page 1

115 1.2 PEOPLE MET Name Title and Organisation Contact details Md. Mahbubur Rahman Khan Dr. M.G. Hussain Md. Abdul Jalil Dr. A. K. Yousuf Haroon Mr. A. K. M. Nurul Islam Mr. Nasiruddin Md. Humayun Mr. Syed Arif Azad Mr. A. B. M. Amwarul Islam Mr. Md. Sirjul Islam Dr. Md. Sharif Uddin Mr. Md. Abdul Khair Dr. G. C. Halder Dr. Shahab Uddin Dr. Md. Jalilur Rahman Mr. William Collis Dr. Md. Anisur Rahman Director-General, Department of Fisheries DG, BFRI and NC, BOBLME Project-Bangladesh Principal Scientific Officer (Planning & Fisheries Resources), Department of Fisheries (DoF) National Technical Adviser, BOBLME project, BFRI Deputy Director (Finance and Planning), DoF Deputy Director (Administration), DoF Deputy Director (Aquaculture), DoF National Project Director, Marine Fisheries Capacity Building Project, DoF Assistant Chief, DoF m Location of meeting Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Assistant Director, DoF Dhaka District Fisheries Officer Dhaka Retired-Chief Scientific Officer, Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute Chief Scientific Officer, MFTS, BFRI, Cox s Bazar Senior Scientific Officer, MFTS, Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, Cox s Bazar Director, South Asia. WorldFish Centre Senior Scientific Officer Riverine Station BFRI, Chandpur manash15@yahoo.com shahabuddin98@hotmail.com jrhman@yahoo.com w.collis@cigar.org anisur2002@yahoo.com Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Dhaka Page 2

116 2 INDIAN MACKEREL 2.1 CURRENT INFORMATION AND STATUS OF THE FISHERY This section is primarily based on information provided by the National Coordinator and the Technical Adviser to the BOBLME project. Catches Catches are officially estimated to be around 58 metric tons 2. This figure is however unverifiable, and no trend data are available, as data for Indian mackerel are not recorded separately from other mackerels, but rather are grouped together in the Department of Fisheries (DoF) dataset (generated from logsheet information). It is therefore likely that considerably more than 58 tonnes is caught each year. Catches are thought to be made primarily by drift gillnets (DGN), longlines (LL), and marine set bag nets (MSBN) in the coastal artisanal fishery, using mechanized and non-mechanized boats. Industrial trawlers (shrimp, fish, and cephalopod) also catch some mackerel. A landings site survey suggested that the relative importance of the different gear types in contributing to total Indian mackerel catches is: drift gillnets (95%), longlines (1%), marine set bag nets (2%) and industrial trawl nets (2%). Thus Indian mackerel is mostly caught as a by-catch of the hilsa fishery. (Rahman and Zaher 2006). There is no separate data on any vessels exclusively fishing for mackerels. There are however estimates of total vessel numbers for DGNs, LLs, MSBNs and fin-fish trawlers. These are as follows: Industrial fishery: At present a total of 136 industrial trawlers are operating of which 94 are fin-fish trawlers and 42 are shrimp trawlers Artisanal fishery: There are about 21,400 non-mechanized boats and 22,560 mechanized boats, using the following number of gear units o DGNs: 95,572 o MSBNs: 21,000 o LLs: About 2,641 LL vessels using 24,614 LLs Principal landing sites are: Cox s Bazar and Chittagong, Khepupara, Dubla Island and Patharghata. Catch may be taken throughout the year, but the main fishing season during which Indian mackerel is taken as bycatch occurs November through July. Stocks Various surveys have been completed on marine fisheries resources of Bangladesh since 1958, but none have specifically targeted mackerel fisheries. A major survey was completed in , and a more recent survey was completed by the Fisheries Research Vessel M. V. SEAFDEC during 25 October through 21 December 2007 (DoF Thailand 2008). 2 Total combined catch of S. guttatus, S. commerson and R. kanagurta at Cox s Bazar and Chittagong was 1,178.5 t during (Rahman and Zaher 2006), but the proportion comprised of Indian mackerel is thought to be very small. Page 3

117 Some key findings from previous surveys include: The ultimate length of the individual (L ) and the carrying capacity (K) for R. kanagurta were found to be 27.4 cm and 0.90/year respectively. Wetherall plot estimates of L and Z (total mortality)/k were 26.7 cm and respectively. Exploitation rate was and the selection pattern L 50 (the length at which fish have 50% probability of being captured) was cm. Recruitment pattern suggests two seasonal pulses, one in March-May and another in September-October. Peak recruitment appeared in March-May. Maximum yield could be achieved by decreasing length at first capture to 13.0 cm. The relationship between total length and body weight was found to be W = L Yield and stock prediction suggests that highest yield could be achieved by decreasing the fishing mortality to 2.0 coefficient rate (Mustafa and Ali 2003). Total catch of Indo-Pacific King mackerel, S. guttatus (63.0%), Narrow Barred Spanish mackerel, S. commerson (3.6%) and Indian mackerel, R. kanagurta (4.9%) were t at Cox s Bazar, while catches of S. guttatus (64.0%), S. commerson (3.0%) and R. kanagurta (3.0%) were t at Chittagong in S. guttatus was the most important contributor among the mackerels available. The total length of R. kanagurta varied between 19.8 and 25.1 cm with an average of cm. The values were 48.1 and 74.2 cm with an average of cm for S. commerson indicating fairly large size of the species. The averge total length of S. guttatus was cm. Larger size with higher prices of the S. commerson indicated very high potential for domestic and export market (Rahman and Zaher 2006). Indian mackerel is not a target species and a bycatch of the hilsa shad and Indian salmon fisheries. The mesh sizes of those gill nets are relatively larger and most of the Indian mackerel probably escapes with a small quantity landed as inadvertent bycatch. Other research information is limited, as no tagging has ever been completed, and few staff in DoF, BFRI or FRSS focus their work on Indian mackerel. 2.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE SUPPORT BY THE BOBLME PROJECT Given concerns over the validity of catch data on Indian mackerel, an appropriate area of intervention/support by the BOBLME could be a specific research/data collection project to more accurately assess levels of catches by vessel and using specific gear type targeting R. kanagurta and seasonality, in an effort to obtain more reliable estimates of the volumes and values of landings, and thereby to assess the importance of the fishery and the need for management. BOBLME can assist initiate data collection on all mackerel species available in Bangladesh, based on its importance as plentiful source of low cost protein (for the poor Bangladeshis, like as the people of the Philippines take 70% of their protein requirement from small pelagic groups. BOBLME can negotiate with SEAFDEC to collect data collection on small pelagic fishes, like Indian mackerel, like as statistical data on South China Sea by SEAFDEC. Page 4

118 3 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS HILSA 3.1 HILSA IN BANGLADESH A review of the hilsa shad (T. ilisha) in the Bay of Bengal is provided in the main report, but it is pertinent to provide a brief comment on the nature of hilsa stocks in the river systems of Bangladesh. Previous studies have shown that the morphology of hilsa varies within Bangladesh and adjacent India (see India country report). Staff from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) and the Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (BFRI) undertook a collaborative research project on Hilsa from 1996 to This study (Salini et al, 2004) showed that regional morphological variation was similar to that found within a single site and was probably not related to population structuring. The project also examined the chemical composition of the otolith cores (from spawning grounds) of the same fish that were examined for genetic and morphological variation. These studies (Milton and Chenery 2001) showed similar variation to that found by the genetics and morphology studies. The studies of otolith chemical composition were consistent with the results from the genetic and morphological studies. All three methods indicated that the hilsa populations in the Bay of Bengal should be treated and managed as a single population. Figure 2: Major spawning grounds of hilsa in the Meghna Estuary Source: Halder Page 5

119 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS The fishing fleet consists of around 100,000 boats in inland waters and around 25,000 vessels in the marine sector, of which 75% are mechanised. The main fishing gears are the drift gillnet (Gulti or Kona Jal) which takes around 75-80% of the catch, the set gill net (Chandi jal) which takes around 10-15% of the catch, and the monofilament drift gillnet (Current jal) which takes around 5% of the catch. In addition there are numerous other gears that are used to catch hilsa (and other fish), including the seine net (Jagat ber jal), fixed encircling net (Char ghera jal), etc. Mesh sizes must be at least 90 mm, with the exception of the current jal which must have a mesh size of at least 100 mm. However there is widespread use of smaller mesh sizes (50-60 mm) gillnets used in the rivers over February March targeting new recruits (25-30 cm fish) to the fishery (G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 12 Oct 2010), despite the ban on fishing juvenile fish and the minimum mesh size of 90 cm. The marine fishery targets adult fish utilising a wide variety of mesh sizes ( mm), mainly over July to September. For the purpose of this assessment, two units of assessment are defined as follows: Gillnets (both drift and set) with a mesh size of mm targeting juvenile hilsa (jatka) in riverine waters, operated predominantly by unmechanised vessels. Gillnets (both drift & set) with a min. mesh size of mm targeting adult hilsa in estuarine and marine waters, operated predominantly by mechanised vessels. The numerous other small gear types used in the riverine areas are not considered by the assessment given the very small percentage of the catches by these gears 3.3 CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE At present 50-60% of global hilsa catch is reported from Bangladesh waters, 20-25% from Myanmar, 15-20% from India and the remaining 5-10% from other countries (e.g., Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Thailand and Pakistan) (Rahman et al, 2010). Hilsa catches in Bangladesh were 298,921 tonnes in (95,970 from inland waters and 202,951 tonnes from in marine waters) and accounted for 39.4% of total marine catches, 4.3% of inland catches, and 11% of total fish production (FRSS, 2010). This catch is valued at around Tk. 90 billion / $1.3 billion at average retail prices 3. Accurate estimates of landed values are problematic to obtain given complex relationships between money lenders and fishermen which distort prices paid to fishermen, but are thought to be around Tk billion / $ million 4. The peak fishing season extends from June to March, with a major peak in September-October and a minor one in February-March. National hilsa landing ranged between 144,438 tonnes and 298,921 tonnes over the period 1983/84 to 2008/09. Catches over this period show a steady but gradual increase, and catches in 2008/09 were the highest recorded during the last 20 years. Declines over the 2001/02 to 2003/04 period appear to have been arrested by a number of management measures put in place at that time, in particular jatka 5 fishing ban periods. These rising trends in production however hide a shift in the relative contributions of inland and marine 3 Tk 300/kg. G. C. Halder Pers. Comm, Tk /kg G. C. Halder Pers. Comm, Juvenile hilsa Page 6

120 catches to total production. Similar to the situation in India s West Bengal, Bangladesh s inland catches have been contributing a decreasing proportion of total hilsa catches over time, and in 2008/09 inland catches represented just 32% of total hilsa production. The main causes are likely to be increasing levels of pollution and sedimentation in riverine systems, and reduced water flow from upstream (which results in the drying-up of rivers, and saline intrusion). Over-fishing may also be playing a role despite overall catch growth in recent years, but there is considerable uncertainty that exists over the reliability of catch data (and of marine catch data in particular, which is the driving force for overall increases in estimated landings). Figure 3: Hilsa catches in Bangladesh, 2000/01 to 2008/09 350, , ,000 tonnes 200, , ,000 50, Inland (t) Marine (t) Source: Fisheries Resources Survey System Concerns about over-fishing are supported by periodic studies on CPUE, which, while not always directly comparable, suggest slight decreases in recent years (see Table 1 below). Table 1: Main gears catching hilsa, their CPUEs and areas studied Gears CPUE (kg/net/day) Area covered Source Gill net 45.7 (mean) Meghna River (Chandpur-Hatia) Haldar & Rahman, 1998 Set gill net (Chandi jal) Drift gill net (Gulti jal) 33.0 (mean) Meghna River (Chandpur-Hatia) Meghna River (Chandpur-Sakuchia, Monpura) Meghna River (Chandpur-Alexander), Tetulia, Karkhana, Pyra) Rahman, Emran & Shirajul Islam (2010) BFRI, Meghna River (Chandpur-Sakuchia, Monpura) Rahman, Emran & Shirajul Islam (2010) Current net Meghna River (Chandpur-Alexander), BFRI, Tetulia, Karkhana, Pyra) Rahman, Emran & Shirajul Islam (2010) Source: Rahman, Emran & Shirajul Islam (2010) Page 7

121 WorldFish (2008) also note declines of CPUE in the mechanised marine gillnet fishery 6, from about 700 kg (catch/boat/day) in to less than 100 kg in , recorded at landing sites along the coasts of Chittagong and Cox s Bazar (see Figure 4). Figure 4: Daily catch rate for mechanized gillnet vessels Kg Comparative analysis of Mechanized landing at Ctg-CxBr coast for 5 years Catch/day/boat (kg) Year Source: In WorldFish 2008, adapted from DoF Marine Survey Unit Data (Ahmed, 2007) There may be as many as 100,000 vessels in use to catch hilsa, and vessel numbers have been increasing significantly in recent years (Rahman et al; 2010, WorldFish 2008), although accurate data are not available due to the presence of very many unlicenced vessels in both inland and marine areas (DoF, Pers Comm, 2010). The fishery plays a critical role in terms of the generation of employment and income for those involved, as well as earning foreign exchange for the country. Exact numbers of people involved with hilsa fisheries (catching, processing/marketing, etc) are not reliably known, although some recent estimates have suggested around 500,000 fishers may catch hilsa (Rahman, 2010). There may be another million people indirectly involved in the distribution and sale of hilsa, as well as in ancillary activities (net and boat making, ice production, processing and export). These are concentrated within the Barisal division (63%) and the Chittagong division (29%). Some studies have examined the socio-economic status of fishermen, and it is clear that in general hilsa fishermen can be categorised as socio-economically disadvantaged in terms of access to services (education, health, banking, electricity, piped water), and income - the average annual income (gross margin) of a sample of fisheries was estimated in 2004 as being approximately Tk. 76,000 / $1,270 7, with fishers showing a high dependency on hilsa fishing as a proportion of total income. On average, 70.4% of the respondents incomes were generated from hilsa fishing. However, given the relatively high value of hilsa given 6 These boats use a mix of different types of fishing gears (drift bets, shark nets, rocket nets etc.) and target species such as Hilsa, grunter,, Bombay duck, jewfish, mullet, shrimp, mackerel, crabs, etc. 7 At 2004 exchange rates Page 8

122 strong local demand, it has also been noted in recent research conducted in marine areas in Noakhali and Barisal that the Hilsa/Jatka fishery gave the highest average daily income of Tk. 196/- and Tk. 168/- respectively. The offshore fishery in both regions gave an average daily income of Tk. 134/- (Noakhali) and Tk. 138/- (Barisal) (PCSL, 2007). Figure 5: Gillnet fishermen, Bangladesh Source: Picture courtesy of WorldFish Centre 3.4 RISK ASSESSMENT A risk assessment was undertaken for hilsa in the two main gillnet fisheries the very small mesh (min. 12 mm) fishery mainly undertaken by non-mechanised vessels in the riverine stretches, and the larger (but still small) mesh (min. 85 mm) gillnet fishery mainly undertaken by mechanised vessels in the estuarine and marine areas. The productivity element of the risk assessment is discussed in the main report and shows hilsa to be a highly productive species. When turning to the susceptibility element, the smaller mesh gillnet fishery scores poorly on all elements of the analysis, as much of the available area is fished with a high level of encounterability (e.g. the net covers much of the water column), with a low level of selectivity from the small mesh sizes used and the lack of discards, and the high level of post-capture mortality. However, because of the resilience of hilsa as a species, the overall risk to hilsa is considered medium i.e. could be addressed through improved management conditions. Page 9

123 Table 2: Risk assessment for hilsa in Bangladesh Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Gear Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Gill nets (<60mm) Med Gillnets (>60mm) Low >80 The larger-mesh gillnet fishery fares better in the risk assessment because of a lower proportion of the distribution fished (thus reducing the availability score) and the lower level of encounterability (the gillnet only fishes surface waters in the deeper estuarine and marine waters). Otherwise, despite the larger mesh size, selectivity and post-capture mortality is broadly the same. Combined with the high productivity score, the overall risk level of hilsa populations from the larger mesh gillnet fishery is considered low. A similar, but more targeted risk assessment was undertaken by Milton (2010) for India, Bangladesh and Myanmar (see main report for more information). This suggested that hilsa in Bangladesh appears more susceptible to overfishing than the other two countries, mainly due to comparatively poorer mortality rates, age composition, fecundity and growth rates. However this may be related to the paucity of data from India and Myanmar. Milton (2010) concludes that the productivity of the Bangladesh population appears to be declining. The cause of this decline is unclear and a more detailed ecosystem-wide analysis would be required to identify the key ecosystem components or services that may be affecting hilsa productivity. Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Page 10

124 3.5 ENVIRONMENT Bangladesh lies in the delta of three great river systems the Ganges-Padma, the Brahmmaputra-Jamuna and the Meghna river system, and a complex network of 230 rivers. These three river basins drain a catchment area of 1,720,000 km² of which only seven per cent lies in Bangladesh (UN 1995). About 2.4 billion tons of sediments are carried yearly by the river system in Bangladesh (Holemen 1986). The confluence of the Padma-Meghna rivers is a very significant water body, the major nursery grounds of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) and many other commercially important riverine fishes of Bangladesh. In Bangladesh little research work has been done to-date on the primary productivity of the lakes or floodplains of Bangladesh (Hussain et al. 1978, ARG 1986, Haldar and Ahmed 1991, Haldar et al. 1992, Ahmed 1994) and no work has yet been reported from any flowing water. Ahmed et al (2005) prepared a paper on the primary production and fish yields on the Meghna River system and calculated a fish yield of 7 kg of fish per cubic metre of river per annum. The greatest densities of Ganges dolphins (Platanista gangetica) have been observed in the Ganges mainstream in India between Maniharighat and Buxar (particularly the Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary) and just downstream of there between Kahalgaon and Manihari Ghat, and in the lower Sangu River of Bangladesh (Smith & Braulik, 2008). Mortality in fishing gear, especially gillnets, is a severe problem for Ganges River dolphins throughout most of their range (Mohan 1995, Smith and Reeves 2000). They are particularly vulnerable because their preferred habitat is often in the same location as the fishing grounds. In the middle Ganges, although harpooning is now "rare", mortality in fishing nets remains widespread (Sinha, 2002). A specific problem is that, because dolphin oil is highly valued as a fish attractant, fishermen have a strong incentive to kill any animals found alive in their nets and even to set their nets strategically in the hope of capturing dolphins (described by Sinha, 2002 as "assisted incidental capture"). Bangladesh has a coastline of about 710 km. It supports five species of marine turtles in its territorial waters, namely the olive ridley, green, hawksbill, loggerhead and leatherback turtle. Sandy beaches, suitable for turtle nesting, are available in sections along the mainland and on offshore islands. Three species of marine turtles have been reported to nest in Bangladesh. Among them, olive ridley and green turtles are common, while hawksbills are rare with the last nests reported in 1998 at St. Martin Island. Olive Ridley turtles have been found to nest on sandy beaches all along the mainland coast of Bangladesh and on islands stretching from the Sunderban mangrove forests in the southwest to St. Martin's Island (locally known as Narikel-Jinjira Dweep) in the southeast. Only about 13 sea turtle nesting beaches are known, and most studies are carried out on beaches in the Cox s Bazar area. This highlights the need for detailed surveys along the entire coastline. It is estimated that the number of marine turtles nesting annually on these beaches may not exceed 1,000-1,100 individuals. Green turtles are less widespread than olive ridleys. They nest both on the mainland coasts along beaches in the southeast (from Cox's Bazar to Teknaf), and on island beaches in the south-central region and also on some offshore and coastal islands like St. Martin's, Sonadia, Kutubdia, Sandweep. They nest round the year but the frequency of nesting increases between October and February, with peak nesting occurring between November and January. They nest on the same beaches as olive Ridley s, though there may be differences in nest site selection. Page 11

125 3.6 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Assessment PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Target spp status Reference points (not if RBF) Milton, 2010; Rahman et al, 2010; Amin et al, 2008; Mome, 2007 Despite the on-going implementation of the Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan (HFMAP), hilsa populations within Bangladeshi waters are suffering from both impaired recruitment and possibly diminishing productivity. There is still a considerable fishery for juvenile hilsa utilising nets of less than the 90 mm legal minimum mesh size. Amin et al (2008), estimates that if 10-15% of the year 2000 jatka catch had been protected, an additional 150, ,000t of adult hilsa could have been harvested. Amin also reports that the estimated annual yield, standing stock and MSY were 256,902, 148,498 and 210,125 t respectively in This suggests that the current catches of around 300,000 t represent overfishing this stock. A review by Milton (2010) of previous stock assessments found that although only one of these analyses adjusted the data for gill net selectivity, the results were remarkably consistent and all point to the hilsa population in Bangladesh being overexploited and that fishing mortality needs to be reduced by at least 10% if maximizing biological yield is the overall objective. An alternate analysis that optimised the economic yield of the fishery suggested that the hilsa fishing fleet needs to be reduced to as little as 33% of the existing levels (Mome, 2007). Milton (2010) concludes that the productivity of the Bangladesh hilsa population appears to be declining. The cause of this decline is unclear and a more detailed ecosystem-wide analysis would be required to identify the key ecosystem components or services that may be affecting hilsa productivity. Amin, 2008 ; Milton, 2010; WorldFish, 2008; Interviews. Although various estimates of B MSY have been calculated, mainly based on large length-frequency (L-F) analyses (see Amin, 2008 & Milton, 2010), no biomass-based reference points have been utilised for fisheries management. Given the complexities involved in measuring hilsa abundance, the current L-F based stock assessments are a realistic and practical approach given data limitations. The main reference point that has been adopted in Bangladesh is the exploitation rate (E). This has been calculated since 1995 where it has varied between 0.55 and 0.66 up to 2003 (see figure below). Page 12

126 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Figure 6: Exploitation levels of hilsa in Bangladesh ( ) Stock rebuilding Harvest strategy Harvest Strategy Source: Amin et al, 2008 However the exploitation rate is not a good reference point as a stock may become more resilient to higher exploitation rates as the biomass increases. As a result, the exploitation rate is considered a reasonable indicator of fishing pressure and is not directly used in management decision-making. At present there is no intention to utilise indicatorbased harvest control rules for fisheries management in Bangladesh (WorldFish, 2008). Not scored Despite the acknowledged recruitment over-fishing of the hilsa stock, there is no evidence that the stock is currently depleted e.g. the stock has been driven by over-fishing to the level that there is a drastically reduced spawning stock biomass and reproductive capacity. Halder, 2003 The harvest strategy is based on the understanding that recruitment is being compromised by over-fishing of juveniles in riverine areas and it is necessary to respond to this in a practical way that recognises the socioeconomic dependencies that have evolved to the fishery, and the difficulties of enforcement (requiring a strategy based on ban period that is relatively easy to monitor compared to other potential strategies). The harvest strategy is defined in the Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan (HFMAP), whose objectives include the statement To achieve sustainable fishery through banning catch of jatka and gravid females from nursery and breeding grounds of hilsa during the peak breeding season) (Halder, 2003). The main elements of the strategy spatial and temporal protection of critical spawning grounds as well as precautionary minimum mesh sizes are well proven but there is some concern over the adequate scale of the former and compliance levels Page 13

127 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference with the latter. There is a degree of monitoring that this approach is being implemented (e.g. data collection on length-frequency and average first length at capture ), although the resources available for such monitoring are limited in comparison to the size and dispersed nature of the fishery. We therefore consider that the strategy is both appropriate and cautionary, but have doubts as to whether the current level of implementation is adequate for the fishery Harvest Milton, 2010; Rahman et al, control rules & tools Information / monitoring There are harvest control tools, but these are permanent restrictions, and are not triggered by any stock status indicators or harvest control rules. The harvest control tools essentially consist of the following: 1. Mesh size restrictions (>90 mm except for current nets (100mm)) 2. No fishing of juveniles (e.g. fish <30 cm) 3. Complete fishing ban for 10 days in four spawning locations during 5 days before and 5 days after the first full-moon of the peak spawning season (mid October) in 4 spawning grounds of approximately 7,000 km² area. 4. Four hilsa nursery areas: a. Shatnol of Chandpur district up to Char Alexander of Laxmipur district, about 100 km area of the lower Meghna estuary (closed 1 March -30 April). b. Madanpur/Char Ilisha up to Char Piyal of Bhola district, about 90 km area of the Sahabazpur channel and tributary of the Meghna River (closed 1 March -30 April. c. Veduriya of Bhola district up to Char Rustum of Patuakhali district, about 100 km area of the Tetulia river, sanctuary (closed 1 March through 30 April). d. 40 km area of the Andharmanik river of Patuakhali district, closed 1 November -31 January. e. A fifth area is currently being proposed in Shariatpur. Milton (2010) concurs that spatial and temporal controls like those described above are more likely to work in terms of stock management than controlling fishing effort directly. However, whilst the approach is likely to work, there is a considerable lag period between estimating yields, matching exploitation rates and then expanding management measures. WorldFish, 2008; Amin et al, 2008; Interviews. Information on the fishing fleet is poor, with many vessels being unlicensed. Much of the effort (in numbers rather than fishing capacity) consists of unregulated and non-motorised fishing vessels in the rivers and upper estuary areas. Page 14

128 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Information on stock structure is largely determined through investigations of CPUE and length-frequency analysis of catches. This is being implemented by BFRI in Chandpur, whose activities are constrained by logistical and human resource limitations. However sampling continues to be undertaken. Stock removals are sampled through the FRSS and are reasonably well known, although data collection in marine areas (where the majority of the catch comes from) is weak Stock Milton, 2010; Interviews. Assessment (not if RBF) Bangladesh scientists have undertaken several stock assessments of hilsa in Bangladesh based on analysis of large samples of fish length frequencies. Although only one of these analyses adjusted the data for gill net selectivity, the results were remarkably consistent (see table below). This approach is not rigorous and thus the estimated exploitation rates are highly uncertain and would not form the basis of management changes in most situations. However, alternative more rigorous stock assessment approaches require an index of hilsa abundance. These data are not available and are unlikely to be reliably collected in any of the countries in the region. Thus, the stock assessments of Bangladesh scientists probably provide the only realistic indicators of hilsa population status in Bangladesh. Period Adjusted for selectivity? Fishing mortality Exploitation rate Reference 1998 Yes Rahman & Cowx No Amin et al, No Amin et al, No Halder & Amin, No Amin et al, 2002 Source: Milton, 2010 Page 15

129 3.6.2 Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance The hilsa fishery in Bangladesh has a well designed, species-specific management plan that provides a practical spatial approach to stock conservation efforts. However there are a number of acknowledged weak elements to this plan and the information used to inform its update and the modification of management actions: There is an extensive use of small gillnets (and other gears) in freshwater that do not meet the minimum mesh size regulations and will catch hilsa under the legal limit of <23 cm. This high socio-economic dependency upon juvenile hilsa is the main management challenge of this fishery; The productivity of hilsa in the Meghna river system appears to be declining for a number of environmental reasons this will need to be considered in on-going fisheries assessments; The use of exploitation rates rather than biomass-based reference points is understandable given current knowledge, but other avenues of stock assessment and reference point establishment need to be considered; and The resources available for monitoring hilsa catches in riverine, estuarine and marine waters are limited, which may further compromise robust stock assessment and management decision-making Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses The issues mentioned above are widely known in the scientific community in Bangladesh, and hilsa research and management have been the subject of a number of recent reviews (Milton, undated; Milton, 2010; Amin et al, 2008). The main recommendations to address these weaknesses can be summarised as: A further review at regional level to determine the most appropriate methodologies for hilsa stock assessment. Any methodologies should reflect the current data limitations and collection challenges, as well as the skills and scientific capacity available in the region, so as to be sustainable and replicable in the longer term; If considered viable, and a cost-effective approach (see previous point), a regional stock assessment should be undertaken with India and Myanmar to obtain a fisheries-independent estimate of hilsa biomass in the upper Bay of Bengal in order to provide the basis for biomass-based reference points, optimal escapement rates and other potential regional harvest control rules; Working with other development initiatives in the watershed to ensure that the potential impacts on hilsa (and other important commercial species) productivity is included in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other processes; The impact of climate change issues related to hilsa shads yearly harvest needs to be included in the future research studies to understand the synergies & linkages; The Governments strong initiatives is needed for the dredging of the inland rivers (and river stretches famous for hilsa harvest and spawning) to keep the migratory route viable and active round the year, particularly during the winter lean periods; The size-selectivity of different gillnet gears is investigated through surveys in order to further refine the overall selectivity of this fishery; BFRI conduct a review of their on-going data collection programme to ensure they have sufficient data to refine and develop the hilsa stock assessment and their basis for scientific management of the fishery. Page 16

130 3.7 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Assessment There are no major differences in the scoring for the two units of assessment in terms of ecosystem impacts, so only one table is provided below. Text in the table however, does highlight some key features with regards to inland and marine gillnet fisheries. PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other retained species Other retained spp. status Other retained spp. management Other retained spp. information G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 10 Oct 2010 No figures on the selectivity of these gears have been provided to the assessment team. It is understood that the selectivity of the larger gillnets is good and bycatch is minimal (G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 10 Oct 2010). However it is likely that the bycatch from the smaller-mesh gillnets used in freshwater will be much higher, with a larger proportion of juvenile fish (both hilsa as well as other retained species). However this is difficult to quantify due to the wide range of mesh sizes and the different gear configurations used. Amin, 2008; Rahman, 2010 The main tool used is the control of gillnet mesh sizes. All nets with a mesh size of under 90 mm are banned, but this is widely ignored, with meshes in hilsa-targeted fisheries being mm in freshwaters and mm in estuarine and marine waters. In addition small mesh current jal, mosahri jal (mosquito net), seine nets, behundi jal (set bag net) and char ghera jal (fence-like nets operating in the char areas) are the most harmful gears being used illegally in the nursery grounds for capturing jatka of different sizes (Rahman et al, 2010). The extensive use of small-mesh nets (e.g. <90 mm) in freshwater areas, and the limited capacity to enforce mesh-size and other regulations means that there is likely to be the extensive capture of juvenile fish of a wide number of species, thus posing a considerable risk to their recruitment and population status. G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 10 Oct 2010 Catch estimates in freshwater areas are reasonably well estimated, although there are apparently little data on gear-wise catch rates and composition. Catch estimates in marine waters are less certain due to the challenges of sampling the wide distribution of gear use and landing points in coastal Bangladesh. It is likely that there is a high degree of under and mis-reporting from both the marine and estuarine hilsa fisheries, and the nature and quantity of retained bycatch is not well-known for these gears. Page 17

131 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Discarded species Discarded spp. status Discarded spp. management Discarded spp. information ETP species G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 10 Oct 2010 Although not recorded, it is highly likely that discards from this fishery are negligible. As such, they do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to any species group. G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 10 Oct 2010; Zahirul Islam, 2006 Discards are banned by law (except for sea turtles which can be thrown away ). As discards are negligible and sea turtles are assessed under ETP, no management measures are required. G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 10 Oct 2010 No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature has been carried out. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme ETP spp. status Rashid 1997; Zahirul Islam, ETP spp. management ETP spp. information Conservation of marine turtles has not received high priority in Bangladesh. Scientific publications and systematic surveys have only appeared in the recent past, and all information related to marine turtles before such studies were carried out was obtained from anecdotal notes, district gazettes, forest department reports and newspaper reports of incidental catch by fishermen. What little information has been produced to date suggests that drifting gillnets deployed from large mechanised boats from Cox s Bazar and Chittagong are one of the major sectors responsible for turtle bycatch (Rashid 1997), although it is not known whether these are targeting hilsa or other marine species. Sea Turtles of India, 2010; Rashid 1997; Zahirul Islam, 2006 Until recently, marine turtles were not included in the protected list of the Bangladesh Wildlife (Preservation) (Amendment) Act of However, although the Act was later revised to include marine turtles, the amendment still exists as a draft notification today without having been included in the official gazette, rendering the inclusion of turtles within the protected list redundant (Sea Turtles of India, 2010). Zahirul Islam, 2006 At present there is little information being collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, either in terms of supporting the development of a management plan (if necessary) or in being able to estimate the outcome status of ETP species. Page 18

132 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) Habitat Management Habitat Information G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 10 Oct 2010 Habitat interactions with these gears are minimal, especially in marine and estuarine areas where they are surface set and do not touch the bottom. In faster flowing river and estuarine areas some gears and / or boats may be fixed to the ground causing temporary and low level physical impacts. However, due to the highly dynamic nature of these environments (e.g. fast and chasing currents, high sediment loads, etc.) it is highly unlikely that these impacts are significant in terms of damage to aquatic biodiversity. G.C. Halder, pers. comm., 10 Oct 2010 At present there are no habitat management measures in place, nor is there any known reason why this might be necessary, esp. given the dynamic nature of the environment involved. The one exception however, and the reason this is scored amber as opposed to green, is that it could be useful to have some measures in place to minimise any abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear. Ahmed et al, 2005; Halder et al, 1992; Holeman, 1986; Khan, 2010 There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of the main habitats in the fishery areas, although this has not been well studied. The spatial distribution of fishing effort is reasonably well known, although not formally recorded. The dynamic nature of the riverine system and its changeable nature is also known and is periodically recorded. The nature of the impacts of these gears on the habitat are not known, but given the dynamic nature of the environment, the risk posed is likely to be low, but could nevertheless be further verified. Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Milton, Ecosystem Management The main issue with this fishery is its low level of size selectivity. Whilst most of the gears used are in the range of mm, there are many smaller mesh gillnet and other gear types in use that have high catch rates of juvenile fish, especially in the river and estuarine areas. This is likely to have consequences for fish and other populations within the lower watershed in terms of a depleted prey population and possible implications on recruitment, not withstanding the high natural mortality of many species involved. Halder, 2003 The Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan, whilst focused on the conservation of hilsa, does little to restrain the impacts of this fishery on the overall ecosystem, although it should reduce the level of fishing mortality on other small and juvenile species potentially impacted by this fishery. In order to manage the ecosystem impacts of this fishery, more is required to determine the impact of removing 300,000 t of a mid- Page 19

133 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference trophic level species from an albeit highly productive ecosystem, as well as reducing bycatch levels of non-target species. The Sundarbans is a RAMSAR site which may afford this area additional protection Ecosystem Information Ahmed et al, 2005; Halder et al, 1992; Holeman, 1986; Khan, 2010; Pathak et al, 2009; Satpathy et al, 2009; Milton, 2010 CIFRI in India has conducted a number of studies into the riverine and estuarine environments of the wider Ganga / Meghna delta and, importantly, the impact of environmental change (e.g. pollution and reduced water flow) on these. As a result it is possible to identify the key elements of the ecosystem. Considerable work has also been conducted by BFRI to identify key spawning and nursery habitats in the Meghna river system, which has been an essential step in creating spatial protection of recruiting fish. The main impacts of the fishery, especially on the target fish stock can be inferred from research to date. However it is not possible to determine the impacts of this fishery (in particular those smaller-mesh gears) in the population dynamics of retained bycatch species Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance There is very little gear-specific information on the nature and quantity of other retained species in the hilsa fisheries, either in the smaller-mesh riverine areas or the estuaries / sea. This has made the retained species component difficult to assess. However, anecdotal information suggests that the bycatch of juvenile fish (both hilsa as well as other retained species) in the smaller-mesh gillnets in the riverine element of the fishery is probably high. It is accepted that small-scale fishers will consider this to be a mixed fishery with few (if any) fish considered too small or valueless to discard, and thus there is limited economic incentive to be selective. Likewise there is very little information on the impact of hilsa-directed gillnets on ETP species e.g. sea turtles in the marine areas, as well as freshwater dolphins and turtles in the river system. There are a number of reports which cite anecdotal evidence of interactions with these species, but there has been very little systematic evaluation of this issue. Finally, beyond its migratory pattern and lifecycle behaviour, the interplay between hilsa and the ecosystem is poorly understood. In particular the role it plays as both a predator and a prey item as a mid-level trophic species is not well known and needs to be better understood before increasing exploitation rates, even if within stock limits. Page 20

134 3.7.3 Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses The following ecosystem-related elements need to be considered: The size-selectivity of different gillnet gears should be investigated through surveys in order to further refine the overall selectivity of this fishery; FRSS should be developed to provide more information on gear-wise catches in order to understand the biological and economic characteristics of the smaller gillnet fisheries in order to develop pro-poor, yet more environmentally sustainable management approaches; A risk assessment study needs to be conducted to determine the level of habitat and ETP impacts, and any discarding in hilsa-directed gillnet fisheries, especially as sea, leading to appropriate management and mitigation measures if required; The current temporal / spatial approach should be expanded to help conserve other retained and ETP species. This would require careful planning, together with a socioeconomic impact assessment and appropriate mitigation; and Allied to the point above, future updates of the Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan should include a wider ecosystem approach, thus investigating not only the direct impacts of the fishery upon hilsa populations, but also upon the stocks of other retained bycatches species, any ETP interactions with the hilsa fishery and its impact on the ecosystem as a whole e.g. the trophic impacts of removing large quantities of a mid-level trophic species from the marine and riverine ecosystems. Figure 7: Gillnet vessels in Kalinodi Source: Picture courtesy of WorldFish Centre Page 21

135 3.8 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Governance and policy Legal Framework Interviews. Fish Act, Marine Fisheries Ordinance, 1983 (and Rules, 1983). National Fisheries Policy, The National Fisheries Strategy (2006). Hilsa management plan The management system can broadly be viewed as existing within an appropriate and effective legal and customary framework. Regulations within the overall legal framework provide for management measures to protect resources. The National Fisheries Strategy (2006) is also guided by the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, and by international agreements signed by the government. The management framework also observes traditional rights. The 2006 National Fisheries Strategy has specific text on pro-poor which recognises the need to ensure that the poor retain their traditional rights to the resources through community leasing (inland) or allocation of fishing rights (marine). Disputes and conflicts certainly exist within the fishery (e.g. between industrial trawlers and inshore net fisheries), but levels of participation in decision-making (see below), and the National Task Force for hilsa management and sub-level committees at Upazila and Union level serve as a mechanism for resolution of conflict. Where conflict can not be resolved through such measures, systems of arbitration and legal recourse through the course are (in principal/theory) available. It is not known whether such mechanisms have ever had to be relied on or how successful they were if so in resolving disputes in an effective manner Consultation Interviews. National Fisheries Policy, The National Fisheries Strategy, Khan, Hilsa management plan The 2006 National Fisheries Strategy represents shift towards far more community participation and consultation, and has a specific section on people s participation which requires a level of decentralised planning and decision making. There is also a provision in law that if rules and regulations are to be amended, the Department must seek public opinion on any proposed changes. It is also mandatory for the DoF to invite local Members of Parliament and Upazila chairmen to awareness-building campaigns about hilsa management measures. While decentralisation has not always proved especially easy, text in indicator above on hilsa management committees suggest that levels of consultation are generally good. These committees meet regularly and generally on a monthly basis, with the national-level Task Force typically meeting on an annual basis. Roles and responsibilities of all those involved in the management process are clear and well articulated: The Ministry of Fisheries and Page 22

136 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Livestock has responsibility for policy making, DoF for management implementation (and FRSS for the monitoring of catches), BFRI for fisheries research, The Coast Guard for enforcement up to 15 km from the shore, the Navy for enforcement outside of 15 km, the police for arrest and prosecutions, and two major fishermen s associations represent the interests of fishermen. The roles and responsibilities of the hilsa management Task Force (which includes representatives of all those listed above) is also clear, with specified working mechanisms Long-term Objectives Interviews. National Fisheries Policy, The National Fisheries Strategy, Hilsa management plan The 1998 National Fisheries Policy is weak in terms of long-term objectives in support of sustainability and the precautionary approach while objectives do include to maintain ecological balance, conserve biodiversity., its main focus in terms of objectives are to enhance production, alleviate poverty, fulfil demands for animal protein, and obtain foreign exchange. However, DoFs mission is to support sustainable [author s emphasis] growth in fish and shrimp production., and the 2006 Strategy has a specific section on long term objective planning. It is also clear that with the introduction and implementation of the hilsa management plan, longterm objectives focussing on sustainability are now a driving force in the overall governance and policy framework Incentives Interviews. Hilsa management plan A critical aspect of compliance with management measures that are now in place to protect jatka/juvenile fish, is ensuring that livelihoods are not too adversely affected by the fishing ban periods. The DoF has in place a number of mechanisms which can be viewed as positive incentives for compliance with the fishing ban periods, and therefore of overall sustainability they include the provision of 30 kg / month / fishing family, and micro-credit support to fishermen for alternative livelihood activities in non-fishing activities. There are no fuel subsidies provided to hilsa fishermen (only to the trawl sector based on a rationale that it generates foreign exchange and therefore deserve special support), or any other negative subsidies of any note which might be serve to increase capacity in the hilsa fleet. Page 23

137 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Fishery specific management Fishery Objectives Decision making processes Compliance & Enforcement Interviews. Hilsa management plan ; Amin et al, 2008 The detailed BFRI papers underpinning the formal DoF hilsa management plan have clear objectives in support of sustainability, and the resulting management measures put in place aim to ensure that the exploitation is under 50% of the stock biomass (e.g. the exploitation rate is 0.50). At present the exploitation rate is above 0.6 and thus needs to be further reduced. But there are implicit fishery-specific management objectives. Interviews. Khan Community management has proved successful in inland fisheries, but less so in marine fisheries (Khan 2010). The 2006 National Fisheries Strategy has a specific section on people s participation which requires a level of decentralised planning and decision making. Text on indicator above has also demonstrated that there is generally good consultation and decision-making process in place for the specification of hilsa management measures, and as noted there is a provision in law that if rules and regulations are to be amended, the Department must seek public opinion. These decision making processes, and indeed compliance with regulations, are supported by an extensive programme of awareness campaigns through both print and electronic media. The DoF has a number of television slots each year at critical periods, and uses wellknown personalities/actors to convey fisheries management messages. Ideas about management decision-making are supported by research scientists and their outputs. This is facilitated through an annual two-day BFRI workshop, attended by DoF staff, at which BFRI reports on all past/ongoing research activities, and makes proposals for future research activities which might generate research outputs in support of DoF decision-making. The most recent workshop (October 2010) coincided with the visit of the consultants to Bangladesh, and the consultants observed some sessions of the workshop and noted that participation included around 100 government BFRI and DoF staff. Interviews. In 2005 government delegated powers of implementation of rules under the Marine Fisheries Ordinance to the DFOs of coastal districts, but in the absence of technically capable marine fisheries staff at district and Upazila levels, the system has not always worked well (Khan, 2010). MCS in marine areas is strongly focussed on the industrial trawl fishery (Khan, 2010), and a lack of effort/input control has led to a huge expansion of unregulated gillnet activity by the uncontrolled numbers of mechanized and non-mechanized artisanal fishery in the marine sector. Compliance and enforcement in marine areas is not helped by the fact there are only DoF inspectors in marine areas, and one surveillance check-post where Page 24

138 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference vessels can be inspected as they report out/in. The lack of regulation and control over vessel numbers and licensing also applies to the inland/estuarine areas. Other key weaknesses in the enforcement of regulations appear to the local police force and local magistrates, who may not apply penalties that could be enforced for infringements. And while food security support is provided (as already discussed), there remain very strong livelihood and financial incentives not to comply with regulations, to the low socioeconomic status of many fishermen. However, there are also some strengths in the compliance and enforcement system. In inland areas, the seasonal bans in nursery areas and the 10-day spawning ban period are reported to be quite well enforced, with effective Coast Guard activities (which also operates in estuarine/inland areas). Support for MCS activities is programmed into the DoF budget, and DoF provides finances to the Coast Guard and other relevant parties to conduct enforcement activities. There is also reported to be a National Action Plan for MCS (DoF, 2009), and the Coast Guard reports on its activities each year to the hilsa management National Task Force, and gains approval of activities for the coming year. The public awareness activities mentioned in also serve to support compliance. Penalties for infringements are not high in financial terms, however the ability to confiscate nets can be viewed as being a considerable disincentive to break regulations (if applied). There are also reported to be records kept of infringements (not seen by the consultants), although it is not known how comprehensive these records are in terms of the total infringements identified Research Plan Indicator above noted that BFRI have an annual workshop to present results, and discuss and agree future activities. This workshop, and annual budgetary planning, serve to provide the basis for a research plan. The process itself, and the working relationships between BFRI and DoF staff also appear to suggest relatively good linkages between research and management. BFRI has more than 50 PhD scientists, many of them trained overseas through previous donor-funded projects at high quality research institutes and universities. So human capacity for research is generally good. However, there are some notable weaknesses in hilsa research. There is a very strong focus in the country on aquaculture research, and many of the qualified research staff are now nearing retirement age. The numbers of younger staff receiving good training has drastically declined, and there are therefore concerns about the lack of new cohort of research scientists entering government employment. Page 25

139 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference A second key weakness so far as hilsa is concerned, is that there is very little research taking place on marine hilsa resources/fisheries. While it could be argued that it makes sense to focus activities on inshore nursery and spawning areas given their importance for both the inland and marine fisheries, the lack of marine-related research is nevertheless a concern Performance Evaluation Interviews. The 2006 National Fisheries Strategy has a M&E sub-strategy, which requires an M&E system to be established, as well as an M&E wing in the DoF. Neither has been done. However, this indicator is intended to assess the M&E of the fisheryspecific hilsa management system. M&E of the hilsa management plan appears to be quite robust. There is good M&E of hilsa management strategies through an annual workshop on jatka management, to which all stakeholders are invited, and feedback includes research results, the views of fishers and Upazila committees which submit reports, a report by the Coast Guard their activities, etc. This is followed by a controlling workshop with the Minister of Fisheries and Livestock and other stakeholders, which makes recommendations for improvements/changes. The annual BFRI research workshop also serves as a useful M&E mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the hilsa management plan. There is also more general ongoing M&E through the activities of the hilsa management Task Force and the various sub-level committees, which typically meet on a monthly basis. Thus the system of monitoring the performance of the hilsa management system is both regular and frequent. Given the participatory nature of the M&E and broad range of stakeholders involved, it can also be viewed as being both internal and external i.e. it provides for M&E by those not directly involved in implementation of the management system itself Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance The overall governance and policy framework for hilsa management, and the fishery-specific management framework, generally performs well against the P3 indicators, as a result of the hilsa management plan. Indeed there are many positive lessons-learned of potential interest and replicability in India s West Bengal and Myanmar. The two principal areas of weakness relate to compliance and enforcement, and research. With respect to the former, the larger number of illegal mesh-size nets being used is a particular cause for concern, along with numbers of unlicensed and unregistered vessels. In relation to research, a long-history of donor projects in support of human capacity development has resulted in generally high levels of research skills in the country. However the long-term sustainability of this capacity is under question, and there is far less interest in marine hilsa research in particular, than in aquaculture and inland research topics. Page 26

140 3.8.2 Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses There is a critical need to ensure that all vessels and boats (both mechanized and nonmechanized) fishing in Bangladesh are licensed. This has to be first step in any long-term sustainable management of the sector. In addition, the hilsa management plan should include specific marine MCS activities/strategies, as well as inland/riverine ones, to ensure an appropriate balance of resources between the two areas. In relation to research, two main areas are suggested for consideration: - Research gaps, particularly with regard to marine hilsa fisheries, to be articulated by relevant stakeholders and incorporated into a research action plan. - A capacity development succession plan to be developed, outlining key staffing issues. This plan could detail the current numbers and qualifications of hilsa research experts in inland and marine areas, consider natural rates of loss through retirement and other factors, and specify requirements for additional training to ensure that Bangladesh does not find itself in a position of declining research expertise in the coming years. This might include both mentoring by senior staff of junior staff, additional formal training, and also mechanisms to ensure that the considerable knowledge available with senior scientists is formally captured and institutionalised with the research and department community. Such knowledge could also be useful for research institutions and fisheries administrations in both India (West Bengal) and Myanmar. Concerns over research capacity, might also hold true in relation to capacity levels in the Ministry and the Department of Fisheries again, at present there are many highly qualified and capable staff. However, there are sure to be areas where existing staff capabilities could be further enhanced. Furthermore, planning to ensure that younger staff are also trainedup, would appear to be critical in ensuring long-term maintenance of capacity levels. Thus a capacity development succession plan covering both BFRI and the Ministry/Department might be a useful output of the BOBLME project. Page 27

141 3.9 SUMMARY HILSA The table below provides a summary of the performance for hilsa in Bangladesh Table 3: Summary performance table for hilsa in Bangladesh Bangladesh Unit of Assessment Principle 1: Stock status Outcome Harvest strategy Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific mang Spp Gear Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding ifnecessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Other retained status Other retained management Other retained info / Discardsstatus Discards management Discards info / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation Hilsa 2 Gill nets 40-60mm 0 0 * Hilsa 2 Gill net mm 0 0 * Page 28

142 Annex 1: References Ahmed, B. (2000). Water Development and the Status of the Shushuk (Platanista gangetica) in Southeast Bangladesh. In: R. R. Reeves, B. D. Smith and T. Kasuya (eds.), Biology and Conservation of Freshwater Cetaceans in Asia, pp IUCN Species Survival Commission Occasional Paper 23, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Ahmed, K.K.U., S.U. Ahmed, G.C. Haldar, M.R.A. Hossain and T. Ahmed (2005). Primary Production and Fish Yield Estimation in the Meghna River System, Bangladesh. Asian Fisheries Science 18 (2005): Amin, S.M.N., Rahman, M.A., Haldar, G.C., Mazid, M.A. and D. Milton (2002). Population dynamics and stock assessment of hilsa shad, Tenualosa ilisha in Bangladesh. Asian Fisheries Science 15: Amin, S.M.N., Rahman, M.A., Haldar, G.C., Mazid, M.A. and D.A. Milton (2008). Catch per unit effort, exploitation level and production of hilsa shad in Bangladesh waters. Asian Fisheries Science 21: Amin, S.M.N., Rahman, M.A., Haldar, G.C., Mazid, M.A., Milton, D.A. and S.J.M. Blaber (2004). Stock assessment and management of Tenualosa ilisha in Bangladesh. Asian Fisheries Science 17: ARG Aquatic Research Group (1986). Hydrobiology of Kaptai Reservoir, FAO/UNDP Final Report No. DP/BGD/79/015-4/FI, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh. 192p. Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (2005). Ecological Assessment of Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha, Hamilton) Resources with Special Reference to Juvenile Hilsa (Jatka) in the Lower Meghna. Annual Progress Report, BFRI, Riverine Station, 12 pp Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (2010). Sustainable Management of Fish Resources of the Bay of Bengal. M.G. Hussain and Md. E. Hoq eds. SBOBLME Pub./Rep 2 Department of Fisheries (2009). Proceedings of the National Workshop on "Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) in Marine Fisheries, Bangladesh". Strengthening Institutional Capacity of DoF Project. RFLDC, ASPS II, DoF-Danida and BOBP, BOBP/REP/110; 99 pp. Department of Fisheries (2010). Hilsa Management Plan ( ) Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (2006). National Fisheries Strategy and Action Plan for the Implementation of the National Fisheries Strategy. DoF Thailand (Department of Fisheries, Thailand) (2008). The ecosystem-based management fishery in the Bay of Bengal. Survey done through the cooperation of The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), Department of Fisheries (DoF), Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand and Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), Training Department, Thailand. 250 pp. Fisheries Resources Survey System, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (2010). Fisheries Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh, Funge-Smith, S. (2007). Impact of low value/trash fish use in aquaculture in Asia-Pacific. Presentation to an FAO Workshop on the use of feed fish for aquaculture development November 2007, Cochin, India. Page 29

143 Government Gazette (1950). The Protection and Conservation of Fish Act, 1950 Government Gazette (1974). Maritime Zones Act, 1974 Government Gazette (1994). Coast Guard Act, Government Gazette (2003). Marine Fisheries Ordinance, Government Gazette (2003). Marine Fisheries Rules, Haldar, G. C. and K. K. Ahmed (1991). Preliminary studies on primary production of the Kaptai lake. Journal of Zoology 6: Haldar, G. C. and M. A. Rahman (1998). Ecology of Hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha (Hamilton). In: Proceedings of BFRI/ACIAR/CSIRO Workshop on Hilsa Fisheries Research in Bangladesh held on 3-4 March 1998 at Bangladesh agricultural Research Council, Dhaka, Bangladesh (ed. M.A. Mazid and S.J.M. Blaber), Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, BFRI proceedings Series No. 6: Haldar, G. C., M. A. Mazid, and K. K. Ahmed (1992). Limnology and Primary Production of Kaptai Lake, Bangladesh. Reservoir Fisheries of Asia, De Silva, S.S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2nd Asian reservoir fisheries workshop held in Hangzhou, People s Republic of China October Ottawa, Ontario, IDRC p Haldar, G.C. and S.M.N. Amin (2005). Population dynamics of male and female hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha of Bangladesh. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science 8: Halder, G.C. (2003). Hilsa Fisheries Management Action Plan for Bangladesh. Report No (updated August 2003) of the Fourth Fisheries Project (Aquatic Resources Development, management and Conservation Studies). Dhaka, Bangladesh. 88 pages plus appendices Holemen, J. N. (1986). The sediment field of major rivers of the world. Water Resources Research, 4/4: Hussain, G and M. Rahman (2010). Marine fisheries resources of Bangladesh: Stock status and management issues. pp In: M. G. Hussain and M. Hoq (eds.), Sustainable management of fisheries resources of the Bay of Bengal. Support to BBLME Project, Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, Bangladesh. 122 pp. Khan, G. (2010). Bangladesh coastal and marine fisheries and environment. pp In: M. G. Hussain and M. Hoq (eds.), Sustainable management of fisheries resources of the Bay of Bengal. Support to BOBLME Project, Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, Bangladesh. 122 pp. Leterme, J. L., G. C. Haldar and P. Kumar Baseline Socio-economic Survey and Impact Assessment of Hilsa Fishing ban on the Socioeconomic Condition of Hilsa Fishermen. Report No-38.13, December 2004, (GEF Grant No. TF BD), ARDMC studies, GEF Component, Fourth Fisheries Project, Department of Fisheries, xvii+82 pp. Milton, D.A. (2010). Status of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) management in the Bay of Bengal: an assessment of population risk and data gaps for more effective regional management. Report to FAO Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project, 15 February pp. Page 30

144 Milton, D.A. (undated). Summary of recent Hilsa fisheries research in Bangladesh undertaken since 1996 with particular reference to the ACIAR-funded Hilsa Fisheries Research Project. Report to BOBP IGO. 5 pp. Milton, D.A. and S.R. Chenery (2001). Can otolith chemistry detect the population structure of the shad hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha? Comparison with the results of genetic and morphological studies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 222: Milton, D.A. and S.R. Chenery (2003). Movement patterns of the tropical shad, hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) inferred from transects of 87Sr/86Sr isotope ratios in their otoliths Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60(11): Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (1998). National Fisheries Policy. Mohan, R. S. (1995). Mortality of Ganges River dolphin, Platanista gangetica, in gillnets of Ganges and Brahmaputra in India. Tiger Paper 22(1): Mome, M.A. (2007). The potential of the artisanal hilsa fishery in Bangladesh: an economically-efficient fisheries policy. Fisheries Training Programme Final Project Report, United Nations University, Iceland. 57 pp. Mustafa, M. G. and M. S. Ali (2006). Population dynamics and the management of the Indian mackerel, Rastrelliger kanagurta from the Bay of Bengal. Bangladesh Jour. Fish. Res. 7(2): PCSL (2007). Baseline survey for agricultural sector programme support, Phase II RFLDC/MoFL/DANIDA: 119pp Rahman, M. J. & I. G. Cowx (2006). Lunar periodicity in growth increment formation in otoliths of hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha, Clupeidae) in Bangladesh waters. Fisheries Research 81: Rahman, M. J. and M. Zaher (2006). Status and prospects of mackerel and tuna fishery in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Jour. Fish. Res. 10(1): Rahman, M.A., M. Emran & Md. Shirajul Islam (2010). Hilsa Fisheries Management in Bangladesh. Regional Consultation on Preparation of Management Plan for Hilsa Fisheries. Chittagong, Bangladesh, 7-8 February Report to the Bay of Bengal Programme Inter- Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO). BOBP-IGO/RC-HF2/5. pp. 16 Rashid, S.M.A. (1997). Country report on the marine turtles of Bangladesh. In 'IUCN/SSC MTSG Northern Indian Ocean Workshop'. Bhubaneswar, India Salini J.P., Milton, D.A., Rahman M.J. and M.G. Hussain (2004). Allozyme and morphological variation throughout the geographic range of the tropical shad, hilsa Tenualosa ilisha. Fish Res 66: Sea Turtles of India (2010). Bangladesh. Retrieved from on 17 Oct 2010 Shafi, M. M., M.A. Quddus and N. Islam (1978). Studies on the limnology of the river Meghna. Bangladesh. Journal of Fisheries 1(2) : Sinha, R. K. (2002). An alternative to dolphin oil as a fish attractant in the Ganges River system: conservation of the Ganges River Dolphin. Biological Conservation 107: Page 31

145 Smith, B. D. and Reeves, R. R. (2000). Report of the Second Meeting of the Asian River Dolphin Committee, February 1997, Rajendrapur, Bangladesh. In: R. R. Reeves, B. D. Smith and T. Kasuya (eds), Biology and conservation of freshwater cetaceans in Asia, pp Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Smith, B.D. & Braulik, G.T. (2008). Platanista gangetica. In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 18 October United Nations (1995). Guidebook to water resources, use and management in Asia and the Pacific. Volume one: Water resources and water use. Water resources series, No. 74 : Vivekanandan, E., M. Srinath and S. Kuriakose (2005). Fishing the marine food web along the Indian coast. Fisheries Research 72 (2005) pp WorldFish (2008). Towards sustainable coastal and marine fisheries in Bangladesh: initiating a precautionary approach. Authors: Huntington, T., M.G. Khan, S. Islam, M. van Brakel and A. Miller. Zahirul Islam, M (2006). Status of leatherback turtles in Bangladesh. Indian Ocean South- East Asian Leatherback Turtle Assessment IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU pp Page 32

146 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix D: Country Report India (Tamil Nadu & West Bangal)

147 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Country Report: India Prepared by 711-REG

148 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION PEOPLE MET FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL (TAMIL NADU) DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Unit of Assessment A and B: Small mesh gillnet, and high level trawl Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment A: Small mesh gillnet Unit of Assessment B: High opening bottom trawl Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL (TAMIL NADU) FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS HILSA SHAD (WEST BENGAL) INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Assessment - Surface set gillnets Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Surface set gillnets Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses SUMMARY HILSA SHAD (WEST BENGAL) ANNEX 1: REFERENCES ANNEX 2: ETP SPECIES IN THE HOOGHLY RIVER SYSTEM... 51

149 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Tables TABLE 1: FISH CATCH IN TAMIL NADU BY SPECIES AND DISTRICT, 2007 (TONNES)... 7 TABLE 2: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR INDIAN MACKEREL IN TAMIL NADU, INDIA TABLE 3: RISK ASSESSMENT FOR WEST BENGAL FISHERIES TABLE 4: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR HILSA SHAD IN WEST BENGAL Figures FIGURE 1: STATES OF INDIA... 1 FIGURE 2: MAP OF TAMIL NADU... 3 FIGURE 3: DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE CATEGORIES AND COMPOSITION OF THE TRAWL CATCH ALONG THE COROMANDEL COAST FIGURE 4: CATCH VOLUMES OF INDIAN MACKEREL IN TAMI NADU, 2001 TO 2008 (TONNES)... 6 FIGURE 5: PRODUCTIVITY / SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS (INC. SICA)... 8 FIGURE 6: MAP OF WEST BENGAL, SHOWING MAIN HILSA LANDING STATIONS AND RIVER SYSTEMS FIGURE 7: HILSA SHAD IN WEST BENGAL FIGURE 8: CATCHES OF HILSA IN WEST BENGAL 2001 TO 2008 (TONNES) Acronyms ARHMC BOBLME BRD CIFRI CMFRI CPUE FAO MCS PSA RBF SICA TED TN WB Aquatic Resources Health Management Centre Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Bycatch reduction device Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Catch Per Unit of Effort Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations) Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis Risk Based Framework Scale, Intensity and Consequences Analysis Turtle exclusion device Tamil Nadu West Bengal

150 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION In this country Appendix, we present two case study assessments. The first examines stock status, ecosystems impacts, and management performance for Indian mackerel in the State of Tamil Nadu. The second considers hilsa in the State of West Bengal. The case study approach was necessitated by the limited duration of the country visit made by the consultants, and the corresponding need to focus the assessment work on species of particular importance in each State, rather than trying to cover both species in all States in the Bay of Bengal (Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal). In Tamil Nadu there are virtually no hilsa catches, but catches of Indian mackerel are important and are likely to be part of a shared stock with Sri Lanka. In West Bengal catches of Indian mackerel are certainly present, but hilsa represents a more important stock, and one that is shared with Bangladesh. Like the Indian mackerel fisheries in Tamil Nadu, Indian mackerel fisheries in West Bengal are targeted by gillnets and caught as bycatch in trawl fisheries. While responsibility for management of fish resources within the 12 nautical mile limit is devolved to States in India, and thus there may certainly be important differences at State level in terms of stock status, ecosystems impacts, and management performance, the Indian mackerel assessment for Tamil Nadu can be viewed as being broadly representative of performance in other States in India. Figure 1: States of India Page 1

151 1.2 PEOPLE MET Name Title and Organisation Contact details Location of meeting Ranya R Dr. Vivekanandan International Collective in Support of Fisherworkers (ICSF) Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute K. Sellamuthu Director of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu Mahindra Sundaran Dr. Anrose Dr. Madhumita Mukherjee Dr. T. Parvian Dr. S. Biswas Mr. Siddharetha Sarkar Dr. Chakrabarty Dr. Jana Muralidharan Chavakat Manghat Joint director of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu Zonal Director (Chennai), Fisheries Survey of India Director of Fisheries, Dept of Fisheries, Gov of West Bengal (DFWB) Assistant Director of Fisheries, Aquatic Resource Health Management Centre (ARHMC) DFWB Assistant Director of Fisheries, ARHMC, DFWB Deputy Director of Fisheries, ARHMC, DFWB Assistant Director of Fisheries, ARHMC, DFWB Deputy Director of Fisheries, Statistics, Dept of Fisheries, Gov of West Bengal Project Director, FAO/World Bank FIMSUL project icsf@icsf.net evivekanandan@hotmail.com Tnfisheries@tn.nic.in anrosefsi@yahoo.com Madmita_mukh@yahoo.co.in Tapasparvian@rediffmail.com Saptassi66@yahoo.co.in siddarethafish@yahoo.in Chinmoy_aimi@yahoo.com cmmuralidharan@gmail.com Chennai Chennai Chennai Chennai Chennai Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata By Page 2

152 2 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL (TAMIL NADU) 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS Figure 2: Map of Tamil Nadu The main gear targeting Indian mackerel in Tamil Nadu (and neighbouring Andhra Pradesh) is the surface gillnet. There are increasing levels of trawl catch (Dr. Anrose, FSI, pers. comm., 5 Oct., & Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010) as well as the development of a (currently illegal) ring seine fishery. The species composition of these individual gear types is not recorded by the State government s landing statistics, although they are available from CMFRI gear monitoring. These have been officially requested from CMFRI via the BOBLME National Coordinator in India (by 7 th Oct. 2010) but no response has yet been received. Gill net fishery: the gill net fishery, in contrast to Sri Lanka, appears to target Indian mackerel, although there is an unquantified bycatch of other species such as juvenile seerfish (Scomberomorus commerson), carangids and scads (e.g. Decapterus spp.), although such bycatch appears to be low e.g. <10%. Fishers prefer a single species catch and adjust the mesh sizes to suit a particular schooling fishery. The Indian mackerel targeted gillnets have a mesh size of 50-65mm, are around 5m deep and up to a kilometre in length (Mahindra Sundaran, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010). The vessels fishing gillnets are mainly out-board (8.5 11hp) powered fibreglass skiffs, fishing 8 10nm offshore. They are surface set and tend to operate in shallower water (<50 m depth). Trawl fishery: the Indian trawl fleet targets shrimp, demersal fish and cephalopods using a high opening trawl net introduced in the mid 1980 s. It uses a headline height of around 20-30m, so when used in waters averaging 50-60m will fish the entire bottom half of the water column. The cod end mesh should be a minimum of 35mm, but 8-10mm is used by most fishers. It is understood (Dr. Vivekanandan, pers. comm., 7 Oct., 2010) that trawl catches of Indian mackerel have increased from 2% of the total east coast catch to about 15-18%, suggesting that schools are tending to move into deeper water then previously found. In addition, Indian mackerel prefer a temperature of around 27 C so tend to swim deeper over the summer as the thermocline sinks (Yohannan and Abdurahiman, 1998), thus making them more vulnerable to demersal fisheries. Indian mackerel are most abundant down to 50m water depth, but have been found as deep as 200m. The species composition of these trawls varies widely, depending on their target fishery (e.g. shrimp, demersal fish or cephalopods), the location and trawl gear setting (see Figure 3 overleaf). Page 3

153 Trawlers along the Coromandel Coast are restricted to a maximum length of 50ft, and a maximum engine size of 110 hp. There is a strictly enforced 45-day fishing ban (15 April 29 May) each year, common to the entire state of Tamil Nadu (Bavinck et al. 2008) and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fisheries Regulation Act of 1983, requires that the first three nautical miles (5.56 km) from shore be reserved for artisanal fishing. However, this is not strictly enforced, and trawlers often fish closer to the coast (Bavinck et al. 2008). Trawling operations are mostly restricted to a depth of 50 m, and fishing trips generally last 1 3 days (Devaraj & Vivekanandan 1999; Bavinck et al. 2008). Figure 3: Diagrammatic representation of the categories and composition of the trawl catch along the Coromandel Coast. Note that the lists are representative but not comprehensive. Source: Lobo et al, 2010 Ring seines: as purse seine-type gear is illegal in India, there is little detail on the scale and nature of these fisheries, especially on the east coast of India where they are only just being introduced. They are small-mesh enclosing nets, which are set on schools of Indian mackerel and other small pelagic species and are highly effective. Some advocate the legalisation of these gears as they have no habitat impacts, so long as the size and overall capacity of these gears is controlled. Given that they are set on individual schools, they are likely to be highly mono-species specific and to have little incidental bycatch. The use of such gear is reported to be on the rise, and traditional gill nets are typically used to form such ring seines. Page 4

154 For the purpose of this assessment, and given the illegal nature of the ring seine nets, the two main units of assessment are defined as follows: Small-mesh (50 65 mm), surface-set gillnet fishery in Tami Nadu prosecuted by motorised (outboard and inboard) vessels with Indian mackerel as the main retained species; and High opening bottom trawl fisheries in Tamil Nadu targeting shrimp, finfish or cephalopods with a retained and commercially important bycatch of Indian mackerel. We have not included ring nets as a unit of assessment at this stage. Notwithstanding that this gear is currently illegal, its characteristics are similar to that of the small-mesh gillnet, in that the ring seine consists of a number of small-mesh gillnet panels sown together with a bottom purse draw rope. As such - and given they are used to target a number of different schooling small pelagic species - they will perform similarly to the gillnet fishery. 2.2 CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE Current effort levels of fishing for Indian mackerel by the main gear and fleet types described above, are not known. However, the tables below provide some background data on fisheries in Tamil Nadu and on catches in the State. Some key points of interest from Table 1 and Figure 4, and from Fisheries Department data are: Tami Nadu has a coastline of 1,076 km, a continental shelf of 41,412 km², 13 coastal districts, 591 fishing villages, and 363 marine fish landing centres; Tami Nadu has an estimated 206,908 active fishermen, a total employment of 324,234 for the combined catching and related marketing sectors, and 963 fishing cooperatives; Overall catches in Tamil Nadu are dominated by the mechanised sector (61%) (broadly classified as inboard, decked vessels, using mechanical hauling equipment); In the motorised and non-motorised sectors in Tami Nadu, vessel sub-types are: motorised - 53,266 catamarans, 3,285 plank built, and 9616 FRP. Non-motorised dugouts, 14,716 catamarans, 8,122 plank built, and 257 others; By gear, trawl nets account for 61.1% of total catches in Tamil Nadu, gill nets 19.4%, seine nets 1.2%, tangle nets 5.6%, hook nets 5.8%, bag nets 6.3%, and falling gears 0.6%; Indian mackerel represents around 3% of the total landed volume of catches; Catch levels in Tami Nadu over recent years show considerable fluctuations, and suggest a downward trend in most recent years; Average catches in Tamil Nadu for Indian mackerel of 14,430 over the period 2001 to 2008 compare to an estimated MSY for Indian mackerel of 13,473 tonnes (Source: Working group of Fisheries specialists constituted by Ministry of Agriculture. Government of India 1991) i.e. 7% above MSY; The value of Indian mackerel catches is estimated at Rs. 53/kg for 2007, giving an annual landed value of catches in 2007 of Rs. 616 million / $15.6 million. Page 5

155 Catches of Indian mackerel for the whole of India are highly variable, and have varied from 150,000 to 280,000t over the past 5 years, of which around 30% is caught on the east coast in the Bay of Bengal. This proportion of catch from the east coast appears to be rising and has historically been closer to around 10%. It is thought that west and east coast stocks are probably separate, but with some intermixing. Research suggests that catches/stocks of Indian mackerel also appear to be moving towards the north, possibly as a result of increasing sea temperatures, but also due to changes in primary production patterns. Historically, there was negligible catch in the north east (Orissa/WB), but these States now account for around 20% of the east coast catch. The socio-economic importance in Tami Nadu of small pelagics is very considerable, given their low cost to consumers and their very high nutritional value, meaning they are affordable source of animal protein. However, given the low estimated volumes of Indian mackerel landed in Tamil Nadu compared to many other species, its overall socio-economic importance may be considered minor, although it may be of high socio-economic importance for particular individuals or groups. Figure 4: Catch volumes of Indian mackerel in Tami Nadu, 2001 to 2008 (tonnes) 25,000 20,000 tonnes 15,000 10,000 5, Source: Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu Page 6

156 Table 1: Fish catch in Tamil Nadu by species and district, 2007 (tonnes) Name of the Species Nagapattina m+thiruvarur +Thanjavur Pudu kottai Ramanatha puram Thoothukudi Tiru nelveli Kanyakumar i Total % Sharks 1, ,499 1, , % Skates & Rays 765 3,572 2,321 3, , % Eels % Cat fishes , % Chirocentrus 5,701 3,605 3,412 4, , % Oil Sardines , , % Lesser Sardines 8,526 2,819 2,809 4,774 2,131 1,462 31, % Hilsa Ilisha % O.illisha % Anchoveilla 4, , ,368 13, % Thrissocles 1, , % Clupeids 5,160 3, , ,358 18, % Bombay Duck % Saurida & Saurus % Hemirhamphus &Belone , , % Flying fish , % Perches 4,807 3,532 2, ,280 20, % Red Mullets 2,257 2, ,166 8, % Polynemids 1, , % Sciaenids 3,360 4, , , % Ribbon fish , , % Caranx 2, , ,075 11, % Chironemus , % Trachyurus % Other Carangids % Ceryph aena % Elacate % Silver bellies 4,061 4,420 12,543 2, , % Gaza % Lactarius % Pomfrets , % Mackerel 2,520 1, ,375 11, % Seerfish 1, , ,010 5, % Tunnies , % Sphyreana , % Mullets , % Bregm Aceres % Soles , , % Penaeid Prawns 3,182 3,192 7,479 2, , % N.P.Prawns % Lobsters % Crabs 3,585 4,208 10,597 2, , % Cephalo pods 1, , ,458 6, % Miscellan eous 13,606 12,689 19,875 2,875 1,201 10,997 69, % Drapone % Lithrinus , ,549 6, % Sillago ,976 4, % Balisters ,103 2, ,014 5, % Turtle % Ora % Total 78,082 54,055 78,542 46,359 8,823 37, , % % by District 20% 14% 20% 12% 2% 10% 100% Source: Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu Page 7

157 2.3 ENVIRONMENT The State of Tamil Nadu is situated at the south-eastern corner of India. It has over 1,000 km of coastline. The Tamil Nadu coast is straight and narrow without many indentations except at Vedaranyam. The southern coast of Tamil Nadu has a very narrow continental shelf. In Tamil Nadu about 46 rivers drain into the Bay of Bengal, forming several estuaries adjoining coastal lagoons. The Cauvery River and its tributaries form a large delta supporting extensive agriculture. The Gulf of Mannar in particular contains a highly heterogeneous group of flora and fauna and about 3,600 species have been identified from this region in the past. Of these, 186 species are commercially exploited and 116 vulnerable (ICMAM-PD/DOD, 2001). The latter includes five endangered species of sea turtle (Lal Mohan, 1983, CMFRI, 1998) declared under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, and eleven species of marine mammal (James and Lal Mohan, 1987, CMFRI, 1998), including 6 species of whales, 4 species of dolphins and 1 species of dugong. All are placed under schedule 1 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, RISK ASSESSMENT A first step in a Risk Based Framework for assessing data-poor fisheries is to determine the scale and intensity of the fishery. This is then used with the Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) which is provided for Indian mackerel in the main report in order to determine the overall risk to the stock. Figure 5: Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (inc. SICA) PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Gear Gill nets (40-65 mm) Low >80 Bottom trawling Low >80 Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality The table above shows that the Indian mackerel is highly productive. The gillnet fishery scores poorly in terms of all the elements of susceptibility, mainly due to the small mesh sizes compared to the fish length, the medium level of encounterability of the gear in the water column and high level of post-capture mortality. However because of the species high productivity and low availability of the stock to the fishery (it only operates in the coastal fringes of the stock), this stock is considered low risk overall. The trawl fishery scores the same in this analysis. Encounterability is different in that the trawl fishery operates in the lower portion of the water column (as opposed to the top half of the gillnets) but the result is the same. However it should be noted that both availability and encounterability is apparently increasing as the Indian mackerel extends its distribution and moves deeper in response to sea temperature changes. Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Page 8

158 2.5 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Unit of Assessment A and B: Small mesh gillnet, and high level trawl PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Target spp. status Reference points (not if RBF) Stock rebuilding Harvest strategy Harvest Strategy WG of Fisheries Specialists constituted by Ministry of Agriculture (Government of India 1991); Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010; Devaraj et al, 1994 The fishery is currently overfished - the MSY for Tamil Nadu was estimated to be 13,473 t in 1991 but current catches for Indian mackerel over averaged 14,430 t. However the stock appears to be expanding northwards up the east coast and a vulnerability index of key Indian marine species (unpublished) shows that Indian mackerel is a very resilient species to overfishing. This is supported by our own PSA analysis for this species (see main report). Natural mortality is likely to be highly variable as the stock fluctuates with wider oceanographic changes e.g. El Nino events. It is therefore considered likely that the stock is above the point where recruitment might be impaired, but the stock assessment needs to be updated. Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010 Although there are figures for MSY, these must be considered with caution as the stock is highly variable (typical of such highly productive small pelagic stocks). At present there are no limit or target reference points, although the MSY estimates might be considered a de facto target reference point. Not relevant n/a WG of Fisheries Specialists constituted by Ministry of Agriculture (Government of India 1991); Eleventh Five Year Plan ( ) The Government publishes a broad harvest strategy for all marine species groups very 10 years, including small pelagics, but not specifically for Indian mackerel. As a result there is no specific harvest plan for Indian mackerel. The Government generally advocates fishing to MSY, although this is regularly exceeded. Page 9

159 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring Stock Assessment (not if RBF) Yohannan & Sividas (2003). Mahindra Sundaran, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; There are no harvest rules triggered by reference points. The minimum gillnet mesh size is 10 mm, although this will still mean that the juveniles of most pelagic species will be caught. There is a tool in the form of a ban on all mechanised vessel s 1 over a 45-day seasonal period (15 April to 29 May in Tamil Nadu) that reduces pressure on spawning fish stocks. This generic tool is widely accepted by fishers. At the local level there is little resource-driven management, but regulations are specified to deal with conflicts, and generally restrict gears to specific times/days/locations, meaning that there is a default management system to reduce conflicts, but which helps to protect resources (e.g. the village panchayat system). Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010; Anrose FSI, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; At State level there is a reasonable understanding of the fleet composition through vessel licence records and fishing harbour censuses and monitoring. Stock removals are also recorded, although there are currently no gear-specific records so it will be difficult to attribute these removals to specific management units. Given the limited sampling programme and wide distribution of fishing effort, there may be some under- or mis-reporting of catches. At Central level there is a growing amount of data on Indian mackerel fisheries biology through stratified sampling, with reasonable records of length-frequency information over time and in different areas, a knowledge of reproduction strategies and diet. Much of this science is based on the west coast fisheries, but there is an increasing focus on the east coast as the catch distribution moves towards the Bay of Bengal. Devaraj et al, 1998; Yohannan & Sivadas, 2003; Yohannan and Saidkoya, 2000; Y Yohannan & U.C. Abdurahiman, 1998; Yohannan & Said Koya, Considerable research has been put into studies on the population dynamics and stocks of Indian mackerel, although much of these have been focused on the Arabian Sea stock, which may be separate from that of the Bay of Bengal. In particular the growth parameters are well known, and there is increasing knowledge on the level of natural mortality, despite it s inherent inter-annual variability. Fishery removals are also reasonably well known, although as previously noted there may be some level of under- or mis-reporting. The major 1 Includes all vessels with inboard or outboard motors above 10 hp Page 10

160 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference weakness in the assessment of Indian mackerel (and other small pelagic) stocks is the lack of fisheries independent verification e.g. through acoustic biomass surveys which have not been conducted since the late 1970 s Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Despite the general resilience of Indian mackerel to fishing, the status of this stock is probably overfished, but up to date stock assessment needs to be completed. A major worry with regards to this Principle is that there is no harvest strategy and no harvest control rules in operation. The general approach is to just to monitor catches against assumed MSY, and estimates of MSY are themselves probably not that reliable. While considerable amounts of scientific research is available on Indian mackerel, such research has primarily been conducted on the west coast of India, and information on Indian mackerel catches and vessels on the east coast in Tamil Nadu is limited and probably rather unreliable Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses Steps to improve current performance should focus on two main areas. Firstly it is critical to obtain more and better information on the fishery particularly stock status through more complete and up to date stock assessments (including fisheries independent surveys). Secondly, consideration should be given to the specification of a harvest strategy and harvest control rules for Indian mackerel. Such a strategy, and associated rules, would obviously need to be based on appropriate levels of consultation with stakeholders, and would need to take recognition of the socio-economic importance of the fishery, the shortterm impacts that might result from any such strategy, and appropriate mitigating measures to alleviate such short-term impacts while the stock recovers. Page 11

161 2.6 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment A: Small mesh gillnet PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other retained species Other retained bycatch spp. Status Other retained bycatch spp. management Other retained bycatch spp. Devaraj et al, 1999; Muthiah et al, 2000; Mohamad Kasim, Although no independent verification has been provided to the team, it is understood that the incidental bycatch of this fishery is low and mainly consists of juvenile seerfish (scombroids) as well as similar sized adult small pelagic species such as the scads and other carangids. Total bycatch of these retained species is understood to be low, and no more than 10% in total. The two main scombrid species caught are probably Scomberomorus commerson and S. guttatus. In 1999 Devaraj et al reported that studies indicated that all the states on the east coast over exploit this stock by 80% higher effort than the optimum (MSY), and noted that small meshed gillnets exploit the juvenile seerfish incidentally causing recruitment overfishing. Muthiah et al (2000) suggest that over 80% of seerfish catches from small-mesh ( mm) gillnets have not reached maturity. Less is known of the status of carangid stocks in the Bay of Bengal. Mohamed Kasim (2003) reports that most carangid species are underfished in Tamil Nadu, although Decapterus russelli may be under more pressure. Although these fish are reasonably resilient to overfishing, it appears that increases in effort need to be considered with caution. Devaraj et al, 1999; Muthiah et al, 2000; Mohamad Kasim, There is little direct management of either seer fish or carangids, either as a bycatch of the Indian mackerel gillnet fishery or as directed fisheries. The minimum gillnet mesh size is 10 mm, although this will still mean that the juveniles of most pelagic species will be caught. There is a tool in the form of a ban on all mechanised vessels over a 45 day seasonal ban (15 April to 29 May in Tamil Nadu) that reduces pressure on spawning fish stocks. This generic tool is widely accepted by fishers. At local level there is little resource-driven management, but regulations are specified to deal with conflicts, and generally restrict gears to specific times/days/locations, meaning that there is a default management system to reduce conflicts, but which helps to protect resources (e.g. the village panchayat system). Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010; Anrose FSI, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; Page 12

162 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Information Discard species Discarded bycatch spp. Status Discarded bycatch spp. Management Discarded bycatch spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status At State level there is a reasonable understanding of the fleet composition through vessel licence records and fishing harbour censuses and monitoring. Stock removals are also recorded, although there are currently no gear-specific records so it will be difficult to attribute these removals to specific management units. Given the limited sampling programme and wide distribution of fishing effort, there may be some under or misreporting of catches. At Central level there is a growing level of data on small pelagic fisheries biology through stratified sampling, with reasonable records of length-frequency information over time and in different areas, a knowledge of reproduction strategies and diet. Much of this science is based on the west coast fisheries, but there is an increasing focus on the east coast as the catch distribution moves towards the Bay of Bengal. Yohannan & Sividas (2003). Mahindra Sundaran, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. Yohannan & Sividas (2003). Mahindra Sundaran, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimisation management is currently required. Yohannan & Sividas (2003). Mahindra Sundaran, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010; Anrose FSI, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. Sridhar, 2005 All sea turtle species in India are protected with considerable financial penalties for their deliberate capture. Whilst large-mesh gillnets targeting mature seerfish and other large pelagics have been attributed to considerable turtle mortality, the small-mesh nets targeting Indian mackerel are unlikely to ensnare sea turtles, although there may be some incidental snaring in the float lines, but such events are thought Page 13

163 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) Habitat Management Habitat Information to be rare. Sridhar, 2005 The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 ensures that all sea turtle are protected. India is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973, which lists all species of marine turtles in Schedule I, prohibiting their international trade. India is also a signatory to the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), This requires India to put in place strict conservation measures for the five species of marine turtles that visit the Indian coast, as listed in Appendix 1. These and the awareness building that has been conducted to date ensure that any incidental capture of sea turtles leads to their immediate release. The short soak-time of these nets makes survival highly likely. (In Orissa, the State High Power Committee (HPC) permitted only catamarans and craft using motors of less than 10 hp and monofilament nets (of smaller net size and length) within the buffer zone of the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary an area located beyond 10 km from the shore). Sridhar, 2005; Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010; Anrose FSI, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; No formal assessment of the rate and nature of ETP interactions has been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010 This is purely a surface fishery with a very limited interaction with the substrate. There may be the occasional contact when fishing in shallow waters, but this is intermittent and temporary. The only potential habitat damage from these small-mesh gillnets is if lost gear / gear fragments become snagged on coral reefs, where they can cause considerable damage as well as continue to fish. Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010 There is no management of habitat interactions in this fishery as these are rare, temporary and low impact. Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010 Outside of the coral reef areas there is little information on the nature Page 14

164 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management of marine habitats and their spatial distribution. Given the shallow nature of the fishing areas, this knowledge could be improved and any necessary spatial measures e.g. closure of shallow, rocky substrates, be considered. Devaraj et al, 1999; Muthiah et al, 2000; Mohamad Kasim, The Indian mackerel-targeted fishery use a reasonably selective mesh size that is used to catch larger, mono-specific schools of fish, with a resultant low bycatch of other species and negligible discards. Furthermore this gear has a very low impact on ETP species and a negligible impact on habitats. The main impact of this fishery is therefore limited to its capture of relatively high volumes of a low to mid trophic level species with possible implications for its predators. This is likely to be low, but given that this is an open-access fishery, this cannot be considered highly certain. Devaraj et al, 1999; Muthiah et al, 2000; Mohamad Kasim, Most fishers targeting Indian mackerel do utilise larger meshes of mm and will specifically target Indian mackerel schools where bycatch of juvenile large pelagics such as seer fish will be lowest. It is also known that adult Indian mackerel tend to school together, unlike juvenile fish that will school with a number of other species for added protection Ecosystem Information The 45 day ban on mechanised vessels will also benefit a wide range of pelagic as well as demersal species. Dr. Vivekanandan (pers. comm., 7 Oct., 2010); Devaraj et al, 1998; CMFRI have conducted considerable amount of work on the biology of the Indian mackerel (esp. on the West coast), including diet and trophic studies. There is substantial and growing information on the influence of environmental conditions (e.g. seasonal monsoon as well as longerterm climate change) on pelagic ecosystems and the status and distribution of Indian mackerel. Page 15

165 2.6.2 Unit of Assessment B: High opening bottom trawl PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other retained species Other retained bycatch spp. Status Lobo et al, 2010; Banks & Macfadyen, Trawl catches from the Coromandel coast consist of three main elements: target catch (i.e. shrimps, high value demersal fish and cephalopods), retained bycatch (subdivided into commercial bycatch such as Indian mackerel, and trash fish destined for fishmeal production) and discarded bycatch (very low value fish unsuitable for fishmeal production). The proportion of target to retained bycatch has historically been very high, but has declined over recent years so that target and bycatch volumes are equal, with the trend continuing so that bycatch is likely to increasingly exceed the target catches (Lobo et al, 2010). The volume of Indian mackerel being caught by this fishery is unknown, but appears to be increasingly available to trawl fisheries as it appears to be extending the duration of its demersal phase (as described in Section 2.1) and may represent as much as 16-18% of the Indian mackerel catch on the East coast of Indian (Vivekanandan, pers. comm.). Day trawlers have significantly higher bycatch ratios, but this group is in rapid decline. Multi-day trawling has a record of being less damaging with lower juvenile bycatch ratios (5-10%) (Banks & Macfadyen, 2010). Other species retained by the trawl fishery include the target species (peneid shrimps and high value demersal species) as well as medium sized commercial catch (inc. Indian mackerel and carangids) and smaller species such as sardines and pony fish that are easily damaged and are destined for reduction into fish meal. For more details of the representative species involved, see Figure 3 (on page 4). Shrimp stocks, whilst overexploited (0.6 to 0.75 B MSY ), have a low vulnerability index and are quite robust due to high fecundity, continuous spawning, without any specific peaks identified, high species diversity, low life span and high growth span. The number and diversity of species involved is high and it is impossible to assess the impact of this fishery on them all. However the decreasing CPUE of target species beginning in the 1990s (see also Devaraj & Vivekanandan 1999) is almost certainly due to increasing fishing effort, common across India, which is now exhausting near-shore resources (Bavinck 2005). The increasing ratio of mid-size and smaller, largely pelagic species also supports those advocating that there has been a fishing down the food web (Vivekanandan, 2005). Therefore it is likely that there is a strong risk this fishery poses serious harm to many of these retained species. Page 16

166 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other retained bycatch spp. management Other retained bycatch spp. Information Discard species Discarded bycatch spp. Status Devaraj et al, 1999; Muthiah et al, 2000; Mohamad Kasim, 2003; Bavinck et al. 2008; EJF, 2005 A number of generic management measures for mechanised vessels like trawlers exist. There is a strictly enforced 45-day fishing ban (15 April 29 May) each year, common to the entire state of Tamil Nadu (Bavinck et al. 2008) that reduces pressure on spawning fish stocks. The Tamil Nadu Marine Fisheries Regulation Act of 1983 requires that the first three nautical miles (5.56 km) from shore be reserved for artisanal fishing, with larger mechanised vessels such as trawlers banned inside of 12 nm. However, this is not strictly enforced, and trawlers often fish closer to the coast (Bavinck et al. 2008). Although the seasonal ban will allow certain areas to recover from the trawl impact, and may allow some species to spawn undisturbed, there needs to be much greater efforts to limit the impacts on certain species as well as protect productive habitats from trawl damage. Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010; Anrose FSI, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; At State level there is a reasonable understanding of the fleet composition through vessel licence records and fishing harbour censuses and monitoring. Stock removals are also recorded, although there are currently no gear-specific records so it will be difficult to attribute these removals to specific management units. Given the limited sampling programme and wide distribution of fishing effort, there may be some under or misreporting of catches. At Central level there is a growing amount of data on Indian mackerel fisheries biology through stratified sampling, with reasonable records of length-frequency information over time and in different areas, a knowledge of reproduction strategies and diet. Much of this science is based on the west coast fisheries, but there is an increasing focus on the east coast as the catch distribution moves towards the Bay of Bengal. Kelleher, 2005; Mahindra Sundaran, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; Banks & Macfadyen, 2010) Shrimp freezer trawlers operating offshore from Visakhapatnam on the eastern coast of India had relatively high discards in the early 1990s. However this fleet has almost disappeared and current discards are much lower (Banks and Macfadyen, 2010). Discards are considered to be negligible in the traditional fisheries and very low in the motorised fisheries. The reasons for the decline in discards are similar to many other countries in South and Southeast Asia, including: (i) overfishing, particularly in inshore and coastal waters; (ii) rising demand due to Page 17

167 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Discarded bycatch spp. Management Discarded bycatch spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status population increase, rising urban incomes and export of better quality fish; (iii) poverty leading to consumption of lower value food fish (iv) product development, e.g. production of surimi; and (v) increased production of fishmeal and animal and fish feeds (Kelleher, 2005). The nature of discards from this fishery is again wide ranging, consisting over low grade trash fish and biogenic material that is unsuitable for storage and utilisation. The status of these species is unlikely to have been studied and will be unknown (see 2.2.3). Yohannan & Sividas (2003). Mahindra Sundaran, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; Discards from this fishery are understood to be low as most low value or damaged material is retained for use as trash fish. Options for bycatch minimisation are limited. The current measures include (i) a operational ban for 45 days and (ii) a no-fishing zone for large mechanised vessels within the 3 nm coastal limit (the latter not always being observed). Further measures could include extension (and further enforcement) of the no fishing zone, particularly if it can include sensitive and vulnerable habitats. The gradual introduction of VMS to this fleet will allow a greater control over their operational range. There have been no bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) applied to date. Legislation to include BRDs is contained in the forthcoming MFRA. There has been important development effort into hard and soft BRDs undertaken by the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT). There is some discussion about developing surimi machines to optimize the use of trash fish. Yohannan & Sividas (2003). Mahindra Sundaran, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010; Anrose FSI, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. Sridhar, 2005; James et al, 1989; Pandav et al, 1997; Pandav et al, 1998; Chadha and Kar, 1999; Shankar, 1999; GOI, 2000).GOI, 2000 Five sea turtle species are known to occur in Indian coastal waters: the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) (GOI, 2000). All are known to nest on the Indian coast, with the exception of Page 18

168 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status the loggerhead. Most published papers and reports state trawl nets (and large mesh gillnets) are mostly responsible for the death of turtles by drowning (James et al, 1989; Pandav et al, 1997; Pandav et al, 1998; Chadha and Kar, 1999; Shankar, 1999; GOI, 2000). All sea turtle species in India are protected with considerable financial penalties for their deliberate capture. Sridhar, Banks and Macfadyen, The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 ensures that all sea turtle are protected. India is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973, which lists all species of marine turtles in Schedule I, prohibiting their international trade. India is also a signatory to the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), This requires India to put in place strict conservation measures for the five species of marine turtles that visit the Indian coast, as listed in Appendix % grants are available from Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) for the introduction of TEDs. In Orissa, the State High Power Committee (HPC) permitted only catamarans and craft using motors of less than 10 hp and monofilament nets (of smaller net size and length) within the buffer zone of the Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary an area located beyond 10 km from the shore. 3,000 boats in Orissa have been provided with TEDs where there are two large rookeries. These TEDs, funded by MPEDA, are being deployed with the support of WWF / CIFT, as part of a participatory management plan. Adoption is slow and enforcement lacking. When applied, the TEDs have been modified to suit fishers concerns, most especially to limit the loss of commercial species. Early trials have identified that commercial catch losses are reduced to under 7%, and turtle catches eliminated (Banks and Macfadyen, 2010)). Sridhar, 2005; Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010; Anrose FSI, pers. comm., 5 Oct 2010; No formal assessment of the rate and nature of ETP interactions has been carried out. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. Zacharia et al, 2006; Joice et al, 2004 A search of the CMFRI archives did not reveal any research on the condition of trawled habitats on the east coast of India, although some work has been done on physico-chemical change. A SICA analysis suggests that this fishery represents a high risk to benthic habitats, as Page 19

169 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Habitat Management Habitat Information Ecosystems Ecosystem Status the fishery is very intensive, non-selective and with low rates of postimpact survival. Lobo et al, 2010 Management of the trawl fisheries is mainly though a coastal buffer zone and a short no fishing period. However it is understood the former is frequently flouted and needs much greater enforcement, possibly through VMS and other remote MCS approaches. Greater and more targeted spatial protection is also required to protect particularly vulnerable or productive habitats. Dr. Vivekanandan, CMFRI, pers. comm., 6 Oct 2010 Outside of the coral reef areas there is little information on the nature of marine habitats and their spatial distribution. Given the shallow nature of the fishing areas, this knowledge could be improved and any necessary spatial measures e.g. closure of shallow, rocky substrates, be considered. Devaraj et al, 1999; Muthiah et al, 2000; Mohamad Kasim, Although the legal minimum is 35 mm, the cod end mesh sizes used by trawlers are as low as 10 mm (Banks & Macfadyen, 2010) and thus has a high potential to disrupt recruitment, esp. give the current rate of (uncontrolled) expansion). It catches a wide variety of pelagic and epipelagic species at a number of trophic levels (e.g. from planktivorous carangids to piscivorous scombrids). The total landings along the SE coast increased from 0.17 million tonnes in 1950 to 0.61 million tonnes in 2002 (Figure a. below). However, the mean trophic level of catches decreased from 3.58 in 1958 to 3.32 in 2002 (see figure below), indicating a gradual transition in landings from piscivorous predators toward planktivorous pelagic fish and invertebrates (Vivekanandan, 2005). This reflects the increasing catches of oil sardine and Indian mackerel, rather than significant decreases in the volume of higher trophic level species. Page 20

170 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information Devaraj et al, 1999; Muthiah et al, 2000; Mohamad Kasim, There are a number of options for measures to protect the ecosystem from this fishery. The current measures include (i) a operational ban for 45 days and (ii) a no-fishing zone for large mechanised vessels within the 12 nm coastal limit (the latter not always being observed). Further measures could include extension (and further enforcement) of the no fishing zone, particularly if it can include sensitive and vulnerable habitats. The further introduction of VMS to this fleet would allow a greater control over their operational range. The mandatory use of BRDs and TEDs where necessary should also be regulated and enforced. Dr. Vivekanandan (pers. comm., 7 Oct., 2010); Devaraj et al, 1998; CMFRI have conducted considerable amount of work on the biology of the Indian mackerel (esp. on the West coast), including diet and trophic studies. There is substantial and growing information on the influence of environmental conditions (e.g. seasonal monsoon as well as longerterm climate change) on pelagic ecosystems and the status and distribution of Indian mackerel, but considerable information gaps still remain on ecosystems in general Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance In the gillnet fishery, bycatch is generally low (less than 10%), but there is only partial/limited information and no active management to reduce bycatch. For the trawl fishery, bycatch rates are much higher, but again there is no bycatch management/strategy and imperfect information. In the gillnet fishery, there are not reported to be any discards, so there is therefore no need for any discard management strategy, although it would be useful to have verification that discards are not an issue. In the trawl fishery, discards used to be very high, but are now thought to be much lower. There is however no clear management strategy on reducing discards, and more information on the extent of the problem would certainly be useful. ETP species interactions are probably not significant in the gillnet fishery, although some catches of turtles is possible. Such catches are more likely in the trawl fishery, where some introduction of TEDs is taking place with reported successes. Gill nets are thought to have very little adverse impacts on habitats or ecosystem status, but the same is not true for bottom trawling. No specific strategies are in place to address these issues in the trawl fishery, except for a ban on fishing within 3 nm (widely reported not be enforced), and the availability of information on the impacts on habitats and ecosystems is poor. In summary, assessment of performance of P2, raises considerable cause for concern, with very few good scores recorded against the performance indicators. Page 21

171 2.6.4 Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses For both units of assessment, consideration should be given to the specification and implementation of an ecosystems impact minimisation strategy. Such strategies would need to be discussed and agreed between all stakeholders to assess their effectiveness, practicability, and impacts. The could be risk-based, and could include a requirement for improved information and monitoring as well as the introduction of specific management strategies to minimise impacts on bycatch, discards, ETPs, habitats and ecosystems. Such strategies could of course be nested within species-specific fisheries management plans i.e. fisheries management plans could/should pay particular attention to such issues. Page 22

172 2.7 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Governance and policy Legal and/or customary framework Interviews. Bavinck (2001, 2006). Tami Nadu Policy Note (2010). Tamil Nadu Marine Fisheries Regulation Rules 1983 (1985). Other legislation as per bibliography in Annex. The Constitution in India provides for all fisheries management powers within territorial waters (12 nautical miles) to rest at State level. In Tamil Nadu, legislation relates predominately to the mechanised sector (essentially inboard, decked vessels using mechanised hauling equipment) and only to motorised and non-motorised traditional vessels in a rather cursory manner, and the legal framework with regards to inshore capture fisheries is not supportive of, or driven by requirements for sustainability. It is also not consistent and/or does not cover many areas which it would need to do so to ensure coherence with international standards and best practice in fisheries management. A closed season, legislated for at State level, for example applies only to the mechanised sector (although one could argue that this observes customary rights of those high dependent on fishing for food or livelihoods). There is however a traditional/customary system for artisanal fisheries management, strongly based on territoriality. Fishermen of each hamlet, represented by their panchayat, can not restrict who can fish (i.e. there is a system of open access and fishermen can fish within zones under the responsibility of different panchayats) but panchayats can restrict how/when fishermen fish. Non-governmental fisher councils have strong authority to restrict or prohibit gear types considered to be harmful to the stock, to other gear users and to the community as a whole. Panchayat s influence varies from place to place. They are generally very strong at village level, but not sometimes very effective in regulating a particular type of fishing across many villages along the coast e.g. regulation of ring seines or pair trawling. The positive example is that they now have a self imposed effective ban period for use of ring seines, but they are not always able to control its proliferation. Pancharats for fishing village/hamlets may not be elected as is the case in formal villages. So while such formal villages are provided for in law by government, fishing villages/hamlets and the decisions they make may not be. So customary rights may not be legally recognised even if they are respected. The main driver of this traditional system is conflict management and resolution, rather than resource management. Thus first level resolution of conflicts tends to take place at the community level, and is very transparent at the village level. Liaison between government and village councils is not very formalised, but efforts are underway to make such relationships more formal. Where conflicts have arisen that have not been solved through traditional methods, the State is not reported to be Page 23

173 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Consultation roles and responsibilities Long term objectives able to arbitrate in a particularly timely, effective and fair manner. Interviews. Tamil Nadu Marine Fisheries Regulation Rules, 1983 (1985); ICSF (2003) Roles and responsibilities for different parties involvement in the management system are well understood. The various departments under the Ministry of Agriculture are responsible for fisheries in the EEZ outside of 12nm, survey and assessment of fisheries resources, exploration of resources in EEZ, fisheries development, fishery technology and fisheries management, in addition to education, research, training and extension, as well as for aquaculture development. The Planning Commission is responsible for the formulation of the Five- Year Plans for the most effective and balanced utilization and allocation of resources, while the policy and details of specific schemes are dealt with by the respective Ministries and departments. The Coast Guard, under the Ministry of Defence, provides protection to fishermen and assistance to them at sea while in distress, regulates fishing by foreign fishing vessels in the maritime zones, and preserves and protects the marine environment from pollution. The Coast Guard also has a mandate to protect endangered marine species under the Wildlife Protection Act The Ministry of Shipping is in charge of the fishing vessel industry and fishing harbours. Responsibilities of State level staff are very well defined through a system of job specification that is uniform across different States for different job categories. The presence of extension officers, and fisheries inspectors (with responsibility for data collection and enforcement) ensure that consultation with fishermen can take place to inform management. The district level (and below) officers of the Department of Fisheries are Assistant Directors of fisheries, Inspectors of fisheries and in many cases sub-inspectors of fisheries and field-men. Local knowledge and views can be thought to be generally incorporated into the management system, through these informal linkages, even if not always functioning perfectly. Likewise, the roles and responsibilities of CMFRI (a national level fisheries research organisation with State branches/offices) are well defined. And at the village level, the roles of the panchayat are well understood by all. The Tamil Nadu Fisheries Act includes no legal requirement for consultation processes, but opportunity is generally provided for such consultation. 11 th 5 year plan and fisheries working group document (2006) Comprehensive Marine Policy. The national level 11 th 5 year plan ( ) has long-term objectives generally consistent with sustainability and the precautionary approach, Page 24

174 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Incentives for sustainable fishing and should guide State level policy. However, this national level plan is not translated into a State level fisheries policy in Tamil Nadu with any form of emphasis on sustainability. The State policy note provided each year, is essentially just a list of budget support areas to be provided to the fisheries sector, and has no overarching vision, specification of objectives, or coherent strategies as to how to deal with policy and management implementation. Likewise the 2004 Comprehensive Marine Policy includes objectives to increase fisheries production, to promote socioeconomic benefits from fisheries, and to ensure ecological sustainability. It is now the intention that this policy apply not just to areas outside of 12nm, but also more strongly to inshore areas. But there appears to be a disconnect between this high level national policy and the specification of similar objectives at State level. Interviews. Tami Nadu Policy Note (2010). There are a very large number of subsidy schemes provided by the government to the fisheries sector. One or two of these could arguably be considered as good subsidies in terms of their ability to assist with resource management e.g. relief to fishermen during the ban period which encourage compliance. But almost all other schemes are of a welfare nature that certainly serves to maintain/increase fishing capacity, even if they also serve an important function in terms of poverty prevention / alleviation. The policy note for example includes subsidies for both motorisation of vessels and for fuel. There appears to be no mechanism by which the impact is evaluated of the provision of public sector support may, or may not be, impacting on resource sustainability. Fishery specific management Fishery Interviews Objectives There are currently no clearly articulated objectives at all relating specifically to either small pelagic fisheries or to Indian mackerel in particular, which could be considered consistent with achieving stock and ecosystem status. Objectives consistent with sustainability are not even implicit given that there are few management regulations at all aimed at regulating effort or catches in the small pelagic fishery (see above under assessment of stock status) Decision making processes As for above Decision-making processes have been described above under PI 3.1.1, and while not primarily motivated by resource sustainability, do result in measures that result in some level of resource protection. However, these decision-making processes are often rather informal, are not linked to the precautionary approach as they are motivated by conflict resolution rather than resource management. They are also not linked to any clear Page 25

175 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Compliance & Enforcement specification of strategies to achieve objectives (which as noted above are generally lacking) with regards to the Indian mackerel in particular. Thus there are no fishery specific decision-making processes, for example small pelagic or Indian mackerel working groups, for the unit of assessment i.e. Indian mackerel in Tami Nadu. Interviews Compliance and enforcement of larger vessels operating in harbours is considered to be relatively effective, especially with regards to the main management measure which is the ban period fishing vessels are required to obtain a token from government to obtain subsidised fuel, and such tokens are not provided during the ban period. This provides a strong financial incentive for compliance, and it is of course very easy to determine whether a fishing vessel is fishing or not. The Coastguard is also operational outside of 12 nautical miles. For the inshore/coastal sector, at-sea inspection by the fisheries department is limited due to budgetary constraints, but there is a strong sense of self-enforcement of traditional fishing rules established by the panchayat within communities. A weakness remains however that monitoring control and surveillance activities are disjointed, and not based on any sort of articulated MCS plan based on the use of limited control resources towards high risk locations/seasons/operators Research Plan Interviews As part of the annual budgeting process, CMFRI prepares annual research plans in order to specify research activities which require funding/budgets. However there is no research plan specifically designed to inform management of the Indian mackerel fishery or small pelagics in general, and work on small pelagics is more periodic/sporadic in nature than systematic, and therefore not especially able to generate reliable and timely information necessary to inform management so as to ensure sustainability. Over the years, there has however been considerable research completed on Indian mackerel, and while some research gaps remain, much information is now known and there is considerable scientific capacity in research staff working within CMFRI. Research results are made available through the CMFRI website and through publication of scientific papers and project reports Performance Evaluation Interviews There is no formal management of the impact of any management regulations for Indian mackerel or small pelagics, and no fishery-specific management plan to evaluate. There are however various internal evaluations mechanisms in place in the Fisheries Department whereby staff at state level monitor district level staff and their activities. In addition, where the Ministry of Agriculture at national level provide funds for specific activities, evaluators/monitors from the Comptroller auditor general periodically check on the implementation of activities in terms of both budget expenditure and effectiveness. Page 26

176 2.7.1 Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key strengths of the management system include the fact that management powers are devolved to State level for inshore waters, and the presence of a strong traditional / community system. Roles and responsibilities of those involved in the management systems are well understood, and considerable amounts of research have also been conducted on small pelagic species in general, and on Indian mackerel. Monitoring control and enforcement is facilitated by the ease of enforcing the principal management regulation involved (i.e. ban periods), and involvement of the panchayat in enforcement of inshore rules. However, the main driver of traditional system is conflict resolution, rather than resource management, and at State level the fishery as a whole suffers from a lack of any sort of coherent hierarchy of policy objectives based on sustainability and the precautionary approach, translated into a management strategy to support such objectives. Government policy, to the extent that it exists, is based primarily on the provision of a large number of subsidies to the fishing sector Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses Recommendations for improvements in performance include the need for a far more comprehensive and better-articulated policy and management strategy for Indian mackerel. This should include the linking in a logical manner of high level policy objectives, and then specific strategies and activities in support of these objectives. A fishery-specific research plan should also be formulated to address gaps in knowledge and to inform fisheries management decisions i.e. research should be driven by management needs so as to ensure good linkage between research and policy/management. A more formulated MCS plan could also be specified, focussing on key risk areas in terms of location, seasonality and stakeholders, so as to ensure that value for money is provided. Finally, the impact of management performance itself should be better evaluated. All such recommendations could be incorporated into an Indian mackerel management plan, with some aspects potentially integrated and coherent with similar developments in Sri Lanka. A management plan of this nature would also specify particular management measures to address weaknesses in P1 and P2 performance discussed earlier in this Appendix. A potential avenue of collaboration by the BOBLME project on such developments is the ongoing FAO-implemented and World Bank-funded FIMSUL project which has an office in Chennai and is working with government and stakeholders to improve policy development and implementation. Other locally-based stakeholders which could play an important role in facilitating the work of the BOBLME project in the coming years are the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, and the Bay of Bengal Project International Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO), both also based in Chennai. Page 27

177 2.8 SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL (TAMIL NADU) The table below provides a summary of the performance for Indian mackerel in Tamil Nadu, India Table 2: Summary performance table for Indian Mackerel in Tamil Nadu, India India - Tamil Nadu Principle 1: Stock status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Unit of Assessment Outcome Harvest strategy Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific mang Spp Gear Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding ifnecessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discardsstatus Discards management Discards info / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation I. mackerel High opening bottom trawl 1 0 n/a I. mackerel Gill nets 50-65mm 1 0 n/a Page 28

178 3 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS HILSA SHAD (WEST BENGAL) 3.1 INTRODUCTION A review of the hilsa shad in the Bay of Bengal is provided in the main report, but it is pertinent to provide a brief comment on nature of hilsa stocks in the river systems of West Bengal. Hilsa in West Bengal follow the anadramous migration cycle described in the main report. In India, hilsa distribution is recorded from the Cauvery, Krishna, Giodvari, Mahanadi, Hooghly and Ganga rivers. In 1873 Day describes two classes of hilsa from rivers, (i) one year old hilsa appearing not to breed and (ii) those breeding at the start and finish of the monsoon. In a series of studies, Pillay et al concluded through a combination of tagging studies and morphometric comparisons that hilsa populations show little or no movement between rivers, with little intermingling of populations (Pillay et al, 1962; and Pillay et al, 1963). More recently hilsa from the Ganga, Yamuna and Hooghly rivers were Figure 6: Map of West Bengal, showing main hilsa landing stations and river systems Source: Mukherjee, M. (2010). sampled using DNA-based genetic analysis, which showed the existence of genetic variation within and between hilsa populations in these rivers, indicating the presence of subpopulations that may be due to differing environmental conditions in each river system (CIFRI, 2008). Therefore, despite recent conclusions that there is one main hilsa stock in the Bay of Bengal (Hussain et al. 1998; Milton & Chenery, 2001; Salini et al, 2004), care should be taken to preserve the identity of sub-populations, especially if hatchery-based restocking is to be considered. Page 29

179 Figure 7: Hilsa shad in West Bengal Source: Mukherjee (2010) Given the importance of seasonal flooding in the migration and distribution of hilsa, one important consideration is the Farakka Barrage, a large barrage across the Ganges River, located in West Bengal roughly 10 kilometres from the border with Bangladesh and completed in The barrage was built to divert the Ganges River water into the Hooghly River during the dry season, from January to June, in order to flush out the accumulating silt which in the 1950s and 1960s was a problem at the major port of Kolkata on the Hooghly River. Bangladesh and India have had many debates about how the Farakka Barrage cuts off Bangladesh's water supply and its impact on downstream conditions. The barrage is also reduced the hilsa catch to less than 1 kg/km above Farakka Barrage after its commissioning in 1975 as compared to the pre-farakka (11.61 kg/km) scenario (Ghosh et al, 1978). 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS The main gear used to catch hilsa are drift or set gillnets (accounting around 96% of production), with the balance being traditional gears such as the clap net (sangla jal). The majority of these are multifilament, although a small proportion (c. 7%) are apparently (illegal) nylon monofilament nets. Mesh sizes vary from 15 to 140mm, but are more normally in the range of 75 to 85mm (Mukherjee, 2010). The minimum legal mesh size is 12mm in riverine areas, except during the breeding season (15 th June 30 th September) when this is increased to 25mm. Certain gears such as the chat jal (a mosquito net of 25mm mesh size) and behundi jal (set bag nets) are also banned for hilsa fishing. In the estuarine and marine areas, the minimum mesh size is 85mm and there is also a prohibition of catching fish less than 500g, although mesh sizes may vary highly from 50mm upwards. There is also a State ban for catching from 15th April to 15th June in marine sector. Remesan et al (2009) examined various poorly selective gears in the Hooghly-Matlah estuary, in particular the behunti jal, a stationary bag net with a wide mouth of 27m and with very small cod end of mesh size (about 2mm), char-pata jal, a screen barrier with a Page 30

180 very small mesh for harvesting juveniles and sitki jal, a skimming net made up of polyethylene netting of mesh size of about 2mm for collecting fry. Around three-quarters of boats targeting hilsa in West Bengal are unmechanised and largely (80%) made of wood. These are usually fishing in the riverine areas over day trips. The rest of the fleet is mechanised and work multi-day (5-10 days) trips in estuarine and marine areas. These boats have a much higher catch rate, and thus now account for the larger proportion of the catch (see next section). For the purpose of this assessment, two units of assessment are defined as follows: Gillnets (both drift and set) with a minimum mesh size of 12mm targeting hilsa and other species in riverine waters, operated predominantly by unmechanised vessels. Gillnets (both drift and set) with a minimum mesh size of 85mm targeting hilsa in estuarine and marine waters, operated predominantly by mechanised vessels. Although these two fleet segments differ in some aspects (chiefly in terms of the mesh size and vessel capacity) they will be considered together in the following analysis. However some differences are highlighted in the analytical tables and the summary text. We previously mentioned the presence of distinct sub-populations in West Bengal s hilsa. Given the wide-spread nature of the fishery, it is considered best to treat the population (including that of Bangladesh & Myanmar) as one overall stock, but to remain aware of the need to preserve these sub-populations in stock conservation planning and management. 3.3 CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES & SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE Current effort levels of fishing for hilsa by the main gear and fleet types described above, are not known, however numbers of both vessels and nets have increased very significantly over many years. Some key points of interest with respect to hilsa fisheries in West Bengal in terms of catches and socio-economic importance are (Singh 2010, Mukherjee 2010): The Indian shad hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha is most abundant in the Hooghly estuarine system of West Bengal; Catches of hilsa in marine and inland areas have declined rapidly in recent years; The current balance of hilsa captures are around 50-70% in marine waters, 20-30% in estuarine and the remaining 10-20% in freshwater; The balance of marine and inland fish production appears to be shifting in favour of marine fisheries. Reasons may include the timing and extent of rains, sedimentation, pollution and increasing eutrophication of coastal waters; Catch declines may be strongly impacted not just be fishing effort, but also by levels of pollution and sedimentation in the river; Catch patterns over longer periods show very considerable fluctuations; Catches are reported to have increased in 2009 and 2010, perhaps due to the introduction of management measures that have been put in place in recent years (e.g. minimum mesh sizes and ban periods); Marine catch data are recorded using standard FAO sampling methodologies. Data on estuarine and inland catches are thought to be far from reliable; Fish prices vary considerably between districts, but average around INR 130/kg ($3/kg). Based on this average price, the value of catches in 2008 in West Bengal can be estimated at around INR 2 billion/ $50 million: Page 31

181 Hilsa has been designated a State Fish inferring certain obligations and priorities with respect to its management and exploitation; and For around 80% of those catching hilsa, fishing represents their primary occupation, and the socio-economic status of many families relying on hilsa is very low (monthly average incomes are around INR 1,300 ($31); two-thirds are without electricity). Figure 8: Catches of hilsa in West Bengal 2001 to 2008 (tonnes) 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 tonnes 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, marine inland Source: Department of Fisheries 3.4 ENVIRONMENT The state of West Bengal has boundaries with Sikkim and Bhutan on the north, Assam and Bangladesh in the east, the Bay of Bengal in the south and Orissa, Bihar and Nepal on the west. Covering an area of 88,752 km², the State has 19 districts and a population of 68.1 million. Most of the West Bengal coast consists of the Sundarbans region of the Ganges delta with many small islands, shoals, sand spits, mudflats and tidal swamps. Mud flats are exposed during low tide near Digha, part of Sundarban and opposite to the Hooghly mouth. The Hooghly Estuary in West Bengal is one of the most polluted estuaries in the world. There are 96 major factories from Nabadwip inland to the bar mouth, discharging almost half a billion litres a day of untreated waste (Sampath, 1998). The Sundarbans mangrove forest is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. A number of rare and endangered species have been recorded in here, including the salt water crocodile (Crocodilus porasus), Gangetic dolphin (Pratanista gangotica), Olive Ridley turtle, (Lepidochelys olivacea), Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) and green turtle (Chelonia mydas). The Hooghly River system also contains a number of species considered endangered by IUCN, including a number of marine and freshwater turtles and the Gangetic dolphin. Two other mammals - the Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) and the Little Porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) are also considered vulnerable. See Annex 2 for more details. Page 32

182 3.5 RISK ASSESSMENT A risk assessment was undertaken for hilsa in the two main gillnet fisheries the very small mesh (min 12mm) fishery mainly undertaken by unmechanised vessels in the riverine stretches and the larger, but still small-mesh (min 85mm) gillnet fishery mainly undertaken by mechanised vessels in the estuarine and marine areas. The productivity element of the risk assessment is discussed in the main report and shows hilsa to be a highly productive species. When turning to the susceptibility element, the smaller mesh gillnet fishery scores poorly on all elements of the analysis, as much of the available area is fished with a high level of encounterability (e.g. the net covers much of the water column), with a low level of selectivity from the small mesh sizes used and the lack of discards and the high level of post-capture mortality. However, because of the resilience of hilsa as a species, the overall risk to hilsa is considered medium i.e. could be addressed through improved management conditions. The larger-mesh gillnet fishery fares better because of lower proportion of the distributions fished (thus reducing availability score) and the lower level of encounterability (the gillnet only fishes surface waters in the deeper estuarine and marine waters). Otherwise, despite the larger mesh size, selectivity and post-capture mortality is broadly the same. Combined with the high productivity score, the overall risk level of hilsa populations from the larger mesh gillnet fishery is considered low. Table 3: Risk assessment for West Bengal Fisheries PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Gear Gill nets (min 12mm) Med Gillnets (min 85mm) Low >80 A similar, but more targeted risk assessment was undertaken by Milton (2010) for India, Bangladesh and Myanmar (see main report for more information). This suggested that hilsa appear more susceptible in India than the other two countries, mainly due to the smallmesh gears used in the riverine areas and the current lack of protected areas for juvenile fish, both of which affect recruitment success. Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Page 33

183 3.6 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Assessment PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Target spp. status Reference points Stock rebuilding Harvest strategy Harvest Strategy Mitra et al, 1998; Sing and Sharma, 2008; Milton, Mitra et al. (1998) (cited in Milton, 2010) undertook an assessment of the trend in hilsa catch in the Hooghly River. They suggested that the MSY for hilsa would be exceeded by Nath et al. (2004) (cited in Milton, 2010) undertook an assessment of the total catchable potential (TCP) of the Hooghly River system and some of the main species, including Hilsa. They estimated that the TCP for hilsa was 3,507.6 t and this has already been exceeded. Thus, the limited studies on Indian hilsa suggest that hilsa are almost certainly over-exploited in West Bengal. The main stock conservation issue is the over-exploitation of juvenile hilsa by very small mesh nets in the riverine areas. This translates into a high potential for recruitment overfishing. It is important to recognise that the whole Ganges delta is subject to considerable environmental change, largely stemming from overabstraction of water within the Ganges watershed as a whole, a large numbers of pollution points within the river system as well as a physical barrages that is likely to further inhibit recruitment success (Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010; Bill Collis, WorldFish Bangladesh, pers. comm., 13 Oct 2010). Singh & Sharma, 2008; Apart from the calculation of total catchable potential, few reference points have been developed for hilsa stocks in India (Singh & Sharma, 2008) and therefore there is no basis for any harvest strategy. It is understood that target escapement rates have been calculated but never implemented. Singh & Sharma, 2008 The stock is currently likely to be depleted, although this has not been confirmed. At present, in India there is no rebuilding plan, although a National Plan of Action has been developed by CIFRI in Barrackpure (Singh & Sharma, 2008) but is yet to be implemented. No score is therefore provided. Meetings with DoF At present there is no effective strategy to reduce fishing effort or mortality in West Bengal. There is a seasonal fishing ban in the marine sector, but not in inland fisheries. There is no harvest strategy specified Page 34

184 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring or being implemented. Singh & Sharma, 2008; Mukherjee, 2010; Milton 2010; Remesan et al, 2009 There are no harvest control rules linked to exploitation rates in West Bengal. The only methods of controlling exploitation are minimum mesh sizes and a seasonal fishing ban in the marine sector. Inland Sector The mesh size of net under 12 mm is strictly prohibited and the chat jal, behundi jal etc. are also strictly prohibited to use for catching hilsa and other fish from river throughout the year under Inland Fishery Act, 1984 and 1985 of section 46, part 1 and 2. According to the above law, the mesh size of net under 25 mm is strictly prohibited for fishing during the breeding season of hilsa and other fish i.e. from 15th June to 30th September in river. Marine sector The banned period for catching hilsa is 15th April to 15th June in the marine sector. It is also prohibited to use the gill net with the mesh size of less than 85 mm, and it is prohibited to catch hilsa of under 500 gm of body weight throughout the year. P.K. Jana, pers. comm., WBFD Stats Wing., 8 Oct 2010; Milton, 2010 Catch monitoring in maritime areas is apparently reasonable as it is largely port-based around the relatively limited number of landing sites and strong support from fisheries associations. Catch monitoring in the freshwater and riverine zones is poor due to the large areas involved and the limited capacity of the Fisheries Department resources at field level (P.K. Jana, pers. comm., WBFD Stats Wing., 8 Oct 2010). Furthermore, whilst vessel licensing in the marine sector is reasonably well established, it is less prevalent in freshwater areas (which are dominated by unmechanised, small-scale fishers) and fishing effort is largely unknown. There are few details on how the jatka figures were estimated in West Bengal, nor are the main nursery areas identified. There also does not appear to be any data on the main hilsa spawning grounds in India (Milton, 2010). There are two institutions involved in data collection. The State Fisheries Department conducts scientific research through ARHMC which benefits from the wide Extension Officer network. However it faces a considerable challenge in balancing its livelihood maintenance remit with management enforcement. CIMFRI at Barrackpur has considerable scientific capacity, but lacks the management remit. This dichotomy is further compromised by the lack of cooperation between the two organisations (see Principle 3 for more discussion). Page 35

185 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Stock Assessment (not if RBF) Milton, 2010; At present there is inadequate stock assessment of hilsa in West Bengal. There are no target or limit reference points identified, and there are considerable uncertainties involved in current assessment practises. As we understand, there is no independent peer review of stock assessment methodologies or practises Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance The limited studies on Indian hilsa suggest that hilsa are almost certainly over-exploited in West Bengal. The main stock conservation issue is the over-exploitation of juvenile hilsa by very small mesh nets in the riverine areas, and open access. Stock status is also impacted by increased levels of fishing effort over time, coupled with declining riverine water flow on which the inland catches depend. The only methods of controlling exploitation are minimum mesh sizes in both inland and marine areas, and a seasonal fishing ban in the marine sector along with a minimum landing size. There is however no clear harvest strategy and no harvest control rules linked to exploitation rates. Information on which to base any such a harvest/management strategy is generally, although not always, unavailable or outdated, although some good scientific outputs are available both from ARHMC and CIMFRI. Data on vessel numbers and catches in inland areas is thought to be especially weak Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses Milton (2010) suggests that the following information is required in order to manage hilsa stocks in West Bengal, and all concur with the findings of this assessment: 1. Identify and map the spatial and temporal extent of major spawning and fishing grounds 2. Identify and map the spatial and temporal extent of major juvenile nursery areas 3. Quantify the spatial extent and severity of pollution and its impacts on hilsa habitats 4. Verify age structure of hilsa populations in India and measure the size structure of the commercial catch 5. Assess the reliability of commercial catch statistics and undertake a stock assessment if feasible. If such information were available, the next step could then be to formulate a management plan/strategy, providing for input measures, output measures, and technical measures as appropriate, so as to adequately protect the resource, while also paying due recognition of the socio-economic impacts of management measures, and their likely practicability, acceptability, and enforceability. A critical aspect of such a plan should be the inclusion of reference points and harvest control rules i.e. management actions would be triggered by the status of the stock reaching particular reference points. Page 36

186 3.7 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Surface set gillnets The common features of riverine (e.g. min 12mm) and estuarine/marine (e.g. min 85mm) gillnets are considered together in this analysis. Where differences occur, they are highlighted in the relevant text. For the scoring using the ticks, where the scores for an indicator are the same for both mesh sizes, only one tick is provided. Where scores are different, the score on the top row in each case relates to the minimum 12mm mesh gill nets, and the score on the bottom row to the minimum 85mm mesh gill nets. PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other retained species Other retained spp. Status Singh & Sharma, 2008; Mukherjee, 2010; Milton 2010; Remesan et al, No figures on the selectivity of these gears have been provided to the assessment team. It is understood that the selectivity of the larger gillnets is good and bycatch is minimal (Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010). However it is likely that the bycatch from the smaller-mesh gillnets used in freshwater will be much higher, with a larger proportion of juvenile fish (both hilsa as well as other retained species). However this is also difficult to quantify due to the wide range of mesh sizes and the different gear configurations used Other retained spp. management Other retained spp. Information Singh & Sharma, 2008; Mukherjee, 2010; Milton 2010; Remesan et al, 2009 The main tool used is the control of gillnet mesh sizes. In freshwater the minimum mesh size is 12mm and nets under 25mm are prohibited during the breeding season of hilsa and other fish i.e. from 15th June to 30th September. In marine areas nets under 85mm are banned and the capture of hilsa under 500g is prohibited. There is also a fishing ban over 15 th April to 15 th June each year. In addition various gears e.g. chat jal, behundi jal, etc are also banned from catching hilsa and other fish from river throughout the year under Inland Fishery Act (1984 & 1985) although juvenile fishing is still widespread. The very small minimum mesh size allowance in freshwater (12mm) and the limited capacity to enforce this and other regulations means that there is likely to be the extensive capture of juvenile fish of a wide number of species, thus posing a considerable risk to their recruitment and population status. Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010 Catch estimates in freshwaters are based on a sampling regime limited by inadequate human and logistical resources in a challenging physical environment. As a result, catch monitoring in the freshwater and riverine zones is poor. Furthermore, whilst vessel licensing in the marine sector is reasonably well established, it is less prevalent in freshwater areas (which are dominated by unmechanised, small-scale fishers) and fishing effort is largely unknown. Page 37

187 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Discarded species Discarded bycatch spp. Status Discarded bycatch spp. Management Discarded bycatch spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010 Although not recorded, it is highly likely that discards from this fishery are negligible. As such, they do not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to any species group. Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010 As discards are negligible, no management measures are required. Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010 No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. GOI, 2000; Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010; Ratul Saha, WWF-India sundarbans Programme, pers. comm., 17 Oct. 2010; T.K. Chatterjee, pers. comm., 25 Oct., 2010 Five sea turtle species are known to occur in Indian coastal waters: the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) (GOI, 2000). All are known to nest on the Indian coast, with the exception of the loggerhead. There are around 83 species of fish that are considered endangered, vulnerable, threatened or rare in the State of West Bengal (M. Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010). Of these, 64 are freshwater species and 19 are estuarine or marine and include two hilsa species, Tenualosa kelee and T. toli (both considered endangered ). However, the extent to which these species are threatened by the hilsa fishery is not known, although it is likely that the two endangered hilsa species continue to be caught but remain unidentified. Six fish species of Hooghly River system and adjoining areas are under Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, Schedule-I Part 2 (A) Fishes. The threat of this gear to other ETP species such as freshwater turtles, the Gangetic dolphin, etc is unknown, although WWF-India s Sundarban Programme indicates no reports to ETP species being at risk from hilsa gillnet fisheries. Page 38

188 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status Habitat Management GOI, 2000; Lakra et al, 2010; Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010; Ratul Saha, WWF-India sundarbans Programme, pers. comm., 17 Oct The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 ensures that all sea turtle are protected. Recently the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India listed further species of marine sharks and rays and some other animals for additional protection. India is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973, which lists all species of marine turtles in Schedule I, prohibiting their international trade. India is also a signatory to the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), This requires India to put in place strict conservation measures for the five species of marine turtles that visit the Indian coast, as listed in Appendix 1. In the freshwater component of the fishery there is much more limited management of interactions with ETP species. As stated above, a number of freshwater fish species are considered as endangered, vulnerable, threatened or rare in the State of West Bengal (M. Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010; Ratul Saha, WWF-India Sundarbans Programme, pers. comm., 17 Oct ), but the level of actual protection afforded to them is not known to the assessment team. Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010 At present there is little information being collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, either in terms of supporting the development of a management plan (if necessary) nor being able to estimate the outcome status of ETP species. Pathak et al, 2009; T.K. Chatterjee, pers. comm., 25 Oct., 2010 Habitat interactions with these gears are minimal, especially in marine and estuarine areas where they are surface set and do not touch the bottom. In faster flowing river and estuarine areas some gears and / or boats may be fixed to the ground causing temporary and low level physical impacts. However, due to the highly dynamic nature of these environments (e.g. fast and chasing currents, high sediment loads, etc) it is highly unlikely that these impacts will be significant in terms of damage to aquatic biodiversity. The loss and discarding of monofilament gillnets may be very high, with potential for high rates of persistence and ghost-fishing in the riverine environment. Madhumita Mukherjee, ARHMC, pers. comm., 7 Oct 2010 At present there are no habitat management measures in place, nor is there any known reason why this might be necessary, esp. given the Page 39

189 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference dynamic nature of the environment involved Habitat Information Milton, 2010 There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of the main habitats in the fishery areas, although this has not been well studied. The spatial distribution of fishing effort is reasonably well known, although not formally recorded. The dynamic nature of the riverine system and its changeable nature is also known and is periodically recorded. The nature of impacts of these gears in the habitat are not known, but given the dynamic nature of the environment, the risk posed is likely to be low. Ecosystems Ecosystem Milton, 2010 Status Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information The main issue with this fishery is its low level of size selectivity. Whilst most of the gears used are in the range of 60 80mm, there are many smaller mesh gillnet and other gear types in use that have high catch rates of juvenile fish, especially in the river and estuarine areas. This is likely to have consequences for fish and other populations within the lower watershed in terms of a depleted prey population and possible implications on recruitment, not withstanding the high natural mortality of many species involved. At present, it is not possible to say that the existing fishery is unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to the point where there will be serious and irreversible harm. Singh & Sharma, 2008 At present there is little evidence of an ecosystem-based strategy for hilsa fisheries management, although this is embedded into the as yet unimplemented National Plan of Action for Hilsa. The State s fisheries management policy, for very understandable reasons, is focused on livelihoods maintenance, but this has resulted in conflicts with enabling long-term ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches. The measures adopted minimum mesh sizes and seasonal fisheries bans are insufficiently focused or adequate in scale to address the potential impacts of this fishery on key elements of the ecosystem. The Sundarbans is a RAMSAR site which may afford this area additional protection. Pathak et al, 2009; Satpathy et al, 2009; Milton, 2010 CIFRI has conducted a number of studies into the riverine and estuarine environments and, importantly, the impact of environmental change (e.g. pollution and reduced water flow) on these. As a result it is possible to identify the key elements of the ecosystem. The main impacts of the fishery, esp. on the target fish stock can be inferred from research to date. However it is not possible to determine the impacts of this fishery (in particular those smaller-mesh gears) in Page 40

190 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference the population dynamics of retained bycatch species. Little is currently known about the critical habitats of hilsa (e.g. spawning and nursery grounds) Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance While the bycatch of species apart from hilsa in gillnets in the marine fishery may not be a very significant problem, this is certainly not true of the inland fishery where mesh size means that bycatches are likely to be high. The very small minimum mesh size allowance in freshwater (12mm) and the limited capacity to enforce this and other regulations means that there is likely to be the extensive capture of juvenile fish of a wide number of species, thus posing a considerable risk to their recruitment and population status. In both the marine and inland fishery, there is no specific strategy in place to try to reduce bycatch except for the use of mesh size (which itself is not especially large in the inland areas). Discards are thought to be almost non-existent, and there is therefore no real need to manage them. India has in place various legislation with regard to ETP species, and the interactions between the units of assessment and such species is probably relatively minor. However, current information is not really available to provide much confidence in this assumption, and there is likely to be some level (as yet unquantified) of impacts on both turtles (both marine and freshwater) and Gangetic dolphins. Habitat interactions with hilsa gillnets are thought to be minimal, due both to fishing itself and also the highly dynamic nature of the environment, although information to understand this potential impact is not fully available. Some net loss, and resulting impact on habitats may occur for example. Ecosystem impacts of the marine gillnet fishery are not thought to be concern. The main issue is with the inland fishery and its low level of size selectivity. There are many smaller mesh gillnet and other gear types in use that have high catch rates of juvenile fish, with likely consequences for fish and other populations within the lower watershed in terms of a depleted prey population and possible implications on recruitment, not withstanding the high natural mortality of many species involved. While some information on ecosystems is available, such information does not pertain to the impacts of the fishery per se Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses Recommendations for improving performance of P2 for hilsa in West Bengal are similar to those made for Indian mackerel in Tamil Nadu. For both units of assessment, consideration should be given to the specification and implementation of an ecosystems impact minimisation strategy. Such strategies would need to be discussed and agreed between all stakeholders to assess their effectiveness, practicability, and impacts. The could be riskbased, and could include a requirement for improved information and monitoring as well as the introduction of specific management strategies to minimise impacts on bycatch, discards, ETPs, habitats and ecosystems. Such strategies could of course be nested within species-specific fisheries management plans i.e. fisheries management plans could/should pay particular attention to such issues. Page 41

191 3.8 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Governance and policy Legal Framework Consultation, roles and responsibilities Interviews. Relevant legislation. The description of the extent to which the management system for Indian mackerel in Tami Nadu sits within a legal and/or customary framework which means that it is capable 2 of delivering sustainable fisheries, observes the traditional rights of local communities and incorporates a dispute resolution mechanism, also generally applies to the management system for hilsa in West Bengal. Key marine and inland fisheries legislation in West Bengal (in addition to national level legislation) includes: The West Bengal Inland Fisheries Act, 1984 and Amendments; the West Bengal Inland Fisheries Rules, 1985 and Amendments; The West Bengal Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1993; the West Bengal Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 1995 and Amendments; Fishing Order of Nov 28 th 2000 on fishing gear. The panchayat system also operates in West Bengal, and there is a strong network of fisheries associations and cooperative societies which can be used by the Fisheries Department to resolve conflicts. Interviews. The comments made on this indicator for Indian mackerel also generally apply in West Bengal. There are 350 blocks (the administrative unit under the districts) in West Bengal and the Fisheries Department has a block development officer (BDO) in each one. Each block may cover 3-4 panchayats. The Fisheries Department also has extension officers working under the BDOs, and fisheries inspectors (responsible for both collecting data and enforcement). Thus, while not always working perfectly, there is generally a good flow of local information and knowledge from the catching sector to the government. In addition to a regular flow of information from ongoing activities/responsibilities, the Fisheries Department has also been engaged recently in a number of specific ad hoc research studies to obtain information on the hilsa fisheries in estuarine/inland areas. The department also regularly runs awareness and consultation camps with fishers. Roles and responsibilities are clear and well understood between relevant stakeholders with little confusion or overlap of responsibilities e.g. Fisheries Department (research, statistics, resource mapping), the Coastguard, fishing associations, panchayat, local police and local administrations, CIFRI, etc), for the same reasons specified in the assessment of Indian mackerel in Tamil Nadu Long-term Interviews. NFDB (2007). Marine 2 Note that this indicator is not assessing whether the legal system does result in sustainable exploitation, just that it is capable of doing so. The outcome of sustainability is assessed under P1 indicators. Page 42

192 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Objectives Fisheries Policy (2004). Government of West Bengal Annual Report (2007). Long-term objectives are much more clearly articulated in West Bengal than in Tami Nadu. The Fisheries Department publishes Annual Reports, which serve to guide activities. These reports are often not widely available in hard copy and there exists a time-lag in their publication, but they nonetheless appear to be used to guide the management activities of the fisheries department, as well as to report on activities. The most recent Annual Report (2006/7) states policy and management objectives relating to sustainability and the precautionary approach, refers to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the national 11 th 5- year plan which also mentions similar objectives Incentives Interviews. There are a very large number of subsidy schemes provided by the government to the fisheries sector. One or two of these could arguably be considered as good subsidies in terms of their ability to assist with resource management e.g. relief to fishermen during the ban period which encourage compliance. But other schemes are of a welfare nature and certainly serve to maintain/increase fishing capacity, even if they also serve an important function in terms of poverty prevention/alleviation. Examples include subsidies for fuel, vessels and gear. There appears to be no mechanism by which the impact is evaluated of the provision of public sector support may, or may not be, impacting on resource sustainability. Fishery specific management Fishery Objectives Decision making processes Interviews. Government of West Bengal Annual Report (2007). There is, as yet, no specific fisheries management plan for hilsa fisheries, and no clearly articulated fishery specific objectives for hilsa fisheries. However, objectives of sustainability are somewhat implicit in the ongoing work of the fisheries department which has included awareness camps on hilsa sustainability and management issues, the overall objectives as stated in the Annual reports, and the regulatory ban period designed to protect spawning stocks. The Department also expresses a willingness to learn from the recent developments in hilsa management in Bangladesh. Interviews. Consultation processes described under Indicator provide a strong basis for bottom-up participatory decision making. These decision-making processes are established and are beginning to respond to the serious issue of resource depletion, while recognising the difficulty of imposing regulations that will have short-term livelihoods impacts on fishers. However, it can not yet be claimed that decision-making is resulting in strategies and measures to achieve sustainability. Fishers appear to generally agree with, and be supportive of, the ban period. But reaching agreement on increases in minimum mesh sizes or closed areas may be more problematic. And the fishery remains one of open access. Page 43

193 3.2.3 Compliance & Enforcement Explanatory Statement Interviews, Mukherjee (2010), Singh (2010). There are few regulations to enforce at the present time, but even so MCS activities are insufficient and not well able to control fishing activity. This is especially the case in inland areas (18 districts), where enforcement relies on fisheries inspectors operating under the statistical wing of the Department, local police, and local administrations. Recent research by the Department revealed that many fishermen were infringing regulations, primarily due to the socio-economic difficulties of abiding by them, coupled with the lack of effective enforcement. Typical infringements included the use of very small mesh size mosquito nets and the sale of undersized fish. Marine fishing activity is generally easier to control due to the presence of seven major fishing harbours, strong marine fishing associations, and close relationships between these associations and the Department. The Department has no patrol vessels itself, but the Coastguard plays an active role in enforcement in the marine environment (but not in inland/river areas), and there are regular coordination meetings between the Coastguard and the Department (and other Government departments), although no clearly articulated MCS plan. As with aspects of the Departments activities, MCS is hampered by a lack of funds. The fisheries sector in West Bengal accounts for around 1.5% of State Gross Domestic Product, but the Fisheries Department receives less than 1% of the State budget. On the positive side, and as noted above, the Department is actively engaged with improvements in compliance and enforcement, in particular through education and awareness campaigns, and in the provision of financial support during ban periods in an effort to increase compliance. The Department has two marine training centres in two coastal districts, which are used to provide awareness on regulations to the marine catching sector, and is reported to be keen to establish Fishery Protection Groups similar to the Forest Protection Groups which already exist. Records and ad hoc research detail fisheries infringements. Sanctions for infringements include the seizing of both nets and catch, which bearing in mind the low socio-economic status of fishermen, can be considered a considerable deterrent, if enforced. Identity cards can also be removed, meaning that fishers are unable to benefit from State provided financial support (e.g. insurance schemes), which again is a considerable deterrent Research Plan Interviews. Explanatory Statement The Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute (CIFRI) operating under the Council of Agricultural Research, and the Aquatic Resources Health Management Centre (ARHMC) operating under the Department of Fisheries, both prepare research plans as part of annual budgetary planning. Some ARHMC projects/activities are sanctioned for periods of more than a year. However, there is no hilsa-specific research plan specifying clear linkages between research activities and management needs, and there appears to be poor collaboration between the two main research organisations. The ARHMC may have better links/access to the fishers through the Department network of extension officers and may thus be better placed to provide demand-driven Page 44

194 3.2.5 Performance Evaluation Explanatory Statement research. Interviews. There is no formal evaluation of the impact of any management regulations for Indian mackerel or small pelagics, and no fishery-specific management plan to evaluate. There are however various internal evaluations mechanisms in place in the Department of fisheries whereby staff at State level monitor district level staff and their activities. Monthly meetings take place at State level to monitor the activities of district level activities, and monthly meetings take place at district level to monitor the activities of the block officers. In addition, where the Ministry of Agriculture at national level provide funds for specific activities, evaluators/monitors from the Comptroller auditor general periodically check on the implementation of activities in terms of both budget expenditure and effectiveness Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key strengths of the management system include the fact that management powers are devolved to State level for inshore waters, and the presence of a strong traditional/community system. Roles and responsibilities of those involved in the management systems are well understood, and considerable amounts of research have also been conducted on small pelagic species in general, and on hilsa fisheries. Monitoring control and enforcement is facilitated by the involvement of the panchayat, by government awareness campaigns, and by the ability to seize nets when infringements are detected. The specification of long-term management objectives in the Annual Reports also serves to guide activities, and the designation of hilsa as a State Fish elevates its importance in management terms. However, the fishery remains one of open access, there are still many bad subsidies in place, and MCS activities are far from perfect especially in inland areas. In addition, there is a worrying lack of integration between the ARHMC and CIMFRI in coordinating and planning research activities in support of management Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses Recommendations for improvements in performance include the need for a far more comprehensive and better-articulated policy and management strategy for hilsa. This should include the linking in a logical manner of high level policy objectives, and then specific strategies and activities in support of these objectives. A fishery-specific research plan should also be formulated to address gaps in knowledge and to inform fisheries management decisions i.e. research should be driven by management needs so as to ensure good linkage between research and policy/management. A more formulated MCS plan could also be specified, focussing on key risk areas in terms of location, seasonality and stakeholders, so as to ensure that value for money is provided. Finally, the impact of management performance itself should be better evaluated. All such recommendations could be incorporated into formal hilsa management plan, with some aspects potentially integrated and coherent with Bangladesh. A management plan of this nature would also specify particular management measures to address weaknesses in both P1 and P2 performance discussed earlier in this Appendix. Page 45

195 3.9 SUMMARY HILSA SHAD (WEST BENGAL) The table below provides a summary of the performance for Hilsa shad in West Bengal Table 4: Summary performance table for Hilsa shad in West Bengal India (West Bengal) Principle 1: Stock status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Unit of Assessment Outcome Harvest strategy Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific mang Spp Gear Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding ifnecessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Other retained status Other retained management Other retained info / Discardsstatus Discards management Discards info / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation Hilsa 1 Gill nets min 12mm 0 0 * Hilsa 1 Gill nets min 85mm 0 0 * Page 46

196 Annex 1: References Banks, R and G. Macfadyen (2010). A blueprint for sustainable tropical shrimp trawl fisheries. A WWF commissioned report completed by Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd, September Bavinck, M (2001). 5 Marine Resource Management: conflict and regulation in the Fisheries of the Coromandel Coast. Bavinck, M and K. Karunaharan (2006). A History of nets and bans: restrictions on technical innovation along the Coromandel Coast of India. Mast 2006, volume 5, no. 1. Bavinck, M., de Klerk L., van Dijk D. et al. (2008). Time-zoning for the safe-guarding of capture fisheries: a closed season in Tamil Nadu, India. Marine Policy 32, Chadha, S. and Kar, C.S. (1999). Bhitarkanika, Myth and Reality. Nataraj Publishers, Dehradun CIFRI (2008). Molecular genetics of Tenualosa ilisha and a few ornamental fishes. CIMFRI Leaflet. Retrieved from on 12 Oct CMFRI (1996). Marine fisheries information service, July Aug Day, E. (1889). The fauna of British India Fishes, London Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture, Aquatic Resources and Fishing Harbours, Government of West Bengal (2007a). Compendium of the Acts, rules, notifications, orders etc relating to Fisheries. Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture, Aquatic Resources and Fishing Harbours, Government of West Bengal (2007b). Annual Report 2006/2007. Devaraj M. & E. Vivekanandan (1999). Marine capture fisheries of India. Challenges and opportunities. Curr Sci 76, Devaraj, M and Mohamad Kasim, H and Muthiah, C and Pillai, N G K (1999). Assessment of the exploited seerfish stocks in the Indian waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India, 41 (1 & 2). pp Devaraj, M, Kurup, KN, NGK Pillai, K. Balan, E.Vivekanandan, and R. Sathiadhas (1997). Status, prospects and management of small pelagic fisheries in India. In Devaraj, M, and P. Martosubroto (Eds.) Small Pelagic Resources and Their Fisheries in the Asia-Pacific Region, Proceedings of the APFIC Working Party on Marine Fisheries, First Session, May 1997, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 1997/31, 445p. Devaraj, M., I. Fernandez and S.S. Kamat (1994). Dynamics of the exploited Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta stock along the southwest coast of India. J. Mar. Ass. India 36(1&2): EJF (2005). Squandering the Seas: How shrimp trawling is threatening ecological integrity and food security around the world. Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK. Fisheries Department, Tamil Nadu (2010). Tamil Nadu Policy Note Ghosh, A.N., Bhattacharya, R.K. and K.V. Rao (1968). On the identification of subpopulation of Hilsa ilisha (Hamilton) in the Gangetic system, with a note on their distribution. Proc. nat. Inst. Sci. India (B), 34(1): Page 47

197 Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture (2005). Marine Fisheries Census, Part III West Bengal. Government Gazette (1976). The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, Government Gazette (1981). The Maritime zones of India (regulation ofd fishing by foreign vessels) Act, 1981 (No. 42 of 1981). Government of India (1972). Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act Government of India (2000). Study on the Distribution of Sea Turtles, their Incidental Mortality in Fishing Nets and Use of Turtle Excluder Device in Fishing Trawlers, Report of the Expert Scientific Panel, Ministry of Agriculture Government of Tamil Nadu (1985). Tamil Nadu Marine Fisheries Regulation Rules 1983 Hussain, M. G., Salini J. P., Islam M. S. and M. A. Mazid (1998). Genetic structure of hilsa shad populations: Preliminary results using starch gel allozymes. In: Paper presented in the International Workshop on Progress of Hilsa Fisheries Research Proceedings (edited by M.A. Mazid and S.J.M. Blaber) of BFRI/ACIAR/FSIRO Workshop on Hilsa Fisheries Research in Bangladesh, held on 3-4 March, 1998 at BARC, Dhaka, Bangladesh. BFRI Proceedings Series No. 6: ICMAM-PD (1998). Manual on methodology for biological parameters. ICMAM Project Directorate, Dept. of Ocean Development, 161 pp. ICSF (2003). Coastal fisheries and poverty: the case of India. IFAD report James, P.S.B.R. and R.S. Lal Mohan (1987)_. The Marine mammals of India. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T & E. Ser., No. 71: James, P.S.B.R., Rajagopalan, M., Dan, S.S, Fernando, A.B., and, Selvaraj, V. (1989). On the mortality and Stranding of Marine Mammals and Turtles at Gahirmatha, Orissa from 1983 to 1987, Journal of Marine Biological Association of India, 31(1&2): Joice, V. T., P. Premlal, C. Sreedevi and B. M. Kurup (2004). Immediate effect of bottom trawling in physico-chemical parameters in the inshore waters (Cochin - Munambum) of Kerala. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 51: Kelleher, K. (2005). Discards in the world s marine fisheries: an update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No Rome. FAO p. 131 Lal Mohan, R.S. (1983). Sea turtle resources. Cent. Mar. Fish. Rs. Inst, Bull., 34: Lobo, A.S., A. Balmford, R. Arthur & A. Manica (2010). Commercializing bycatch can push a fishery beyond economic extinction. Conservation Letters 3 (2010) Lakra, W. S., U. K Sarkar, A. Gopalakrishnan and A Kathirvelpandian (2010). Threatened freshwater fishes of India. National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow (ICAR). Milton, D.A. (2010). Status of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) management in the Bay of Bengal: an assessment of population risk and data gaps for more effective regional management. Report to FAO Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project, 15 February Page 48

198 Milton, D.A. and S.R. Chenery (2001). Can otolith chemistry detect the stock structure of the shad, hilsa Tenualosa ilisha? Comparison with the results of genetic and morphological studies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 222: Ministry of Agriculture (2004). Comprehensive Marine Fisheries Policy, Ministry of Agriculture (2005) Public Notice on Deep Sea fishing Vessels, 2005, No.21001/17/2004-Fy (Ind) Ministry of Agriculture, Department of animal husbandry dairying and fisheries. Yearly handbooks on fisheries statistics Mukherjee, M. (2010). PowerPoint presentation Aquatic Biodiversity At Stake- Resurrection Of Hilsa Stock And Its Impact On Livelihood In West Bengal Muthiah, C and Kasim, H M and Bhat, S Uma (2000). Exploited seerfish fishery resources of India - A review. In: Marine Fisheries Research and Management. Pillai, V N and Menon, N G,(eds.) CMFRI; Kochi, Kochi, pp Pandav B., Choudhury B.C. and Kar C.S. (1997). Mortality of Olive Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) due to incidental capture in fishing nets along the Orissa coast, India, Oryx, 31(1) Pandav B., Choudhury, B.C. and Shankar, K., (1998). The Olive Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Orissa: An urgent call for an intensive and integrated conservation programme, Current Science 75: Pathak, V., R. Seth, R. Tyagi, D. Debneth & A Sahoo (2009). Studies on the environmental flow requirements of various categories of rivers in India. CIFRI Annual Report, Pillay, S.R., K.V. Rao & P.K. Mathur (1962). Preliminary experiments in the tagging of Hilsa, Hilsa ilisha (Hamilton). (MS). IPPC 10th Session document IPFC/C62/TECH 12. Pillay, T.V.R., S.R. Pillay & K.K. Ghosh (1963). A comparative study of the populations of the hilsa Hilsa ilisha (Hamilton) in Indian Waters. CMFRI, 1963 Planning Commission (2006). Report of the Working Group on Fisheries. Eleventh Five Year Plan ( ) Remesan, M.P., P. Pravin and B. Meenakumari (2009). Non-selective Fishing Gears and Sustainability Issues in the Hooghly-Matlah Estuary in West Bengal, India. Asian Fisheries Science Volume 22 (2009) Number 1, Salini, J.P., D.A. Milton, M.J. Rahman and M.G. Hussain (2004). Allozyme and morphological variation throughout the geographic range of the tropical shad, hilsa Tenualosa ilisha. Fisheries Research 66: Sampath, V. (1998). Sustainable Fisheries and the Environment, in Living Resources of India s Exclusive Economic Zone. Ed. S.Z. Qasim & G.S. Roonwal, Omega Scientific Publishers, New Delhi, Sampath, V. (2003). National Report on the Status and Development Potential of the Coastal and Marine Environment of the East Coast of India and its Living Resources. Report to for the GEF PDF Block B Phase of FAO/BOBLME Programme. November pp. Page 49

199 Satpathy, B.B., K.N. Naskar & A.K. Sahoo (2009). Generating information/data on ecology and fisheries from east coast estuarine systems (Subarnerekha). CIFRI Annual Report, Shankar, K. July (1999). The Odyssey of the Olive Ridley, Resonance, Nature Watch Singh, S.N. (2010). PowerPoint presentation India - National Plan of Action (NPOA) for Conservation and Sustainable Development of Hilsa Fisheries. Singh, S.N. and A.P. Sharma (2008). India - National Plan of Action (NPOA) For Conservation and Management of Hilsa Fisheries. Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute (ICAR), Barrackpore Kolkata , W.B., India Sridhar, A (2005). Sea turtle conservation and fisherfies in Orissa, India. Samudra Monograph. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, 27 College Road, Chennai , India Venkataraman (2007). Conservation and management of coastal and marine ecosystems in India. National Biodiversity Authority, Chennai. Vivekanandan, E., M. Srinath 7 S. Kuriakose (2005). Fishing the marine food web along the Indian coast. Fisheries Research 72 (2005) pp Yohannan, T and K.P. Said Koya (2000). The Indian Mackerel. In: V.N. Pillai and N.G. Menon (Eds). Marine Fisheries Research and Management. CMFRI, Kotchi. P Yohannan, T and U.C. Abdurahiman (1998a). Environmental influence on the behaviour of Indian mackerel and their availability to fishing gears. Indian J. Fish., 45(3): Yohannan, T and U.C. Abdurahiman (1998b). Maturation and spawning of Indian mackerel. Indian J. Fish., 45(4): Yohannan, T.P. and K.P. Saidkoya (2000). Indian mackerel. In Marine fisheries research and management Pillai and Menon, ed. CMFRI Yohannan, Y. and M. Sivadas (2003). Indian Mackerel. In Status of exploited marine fisheries of India (M. Joesph and Jayaprakash, eds). CMFRI. Zacharia, P.U., A. A. A. Krishnan, R. N. Durgekar and P.K. Krishnakumar (2006). Immediate effects of experimental otter trawling on the physico-chemical parameters of seawater off Mangalore. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 48 (2) : , July - December Page 50

200 Annex 2: ETP Species in the Hooghly River System Source: Ratul Saha (Coordinator- Biodiversity Conservation, WWF-India Sundarbans Programme), pers. comm, 17 October 2010 Sr No. Class Order Family Species 01 Reptilia Chelonia Dermochelyidae 02 Reptilia Chelonia Cheloniidae 03 Reptilia Chelonia Cheloniidae Dermochelys coriacea Eretmochelys imbricata Lepidochelys olivacea Common English Name Leatherback Sea Turtle Hawksbill Sea Turtle Olive Ridley Sea Turtle 04 Reptilia Chelonia Geoemydidae Batagur baska River Terrapin 05 Reptilia Chelonia Geoemydidae 06 Reptilia Chelonia Geoemydidae 07 Reptilia Chelonia Geoemydidae Batagur dhongoka Batagur kachuga Geoclemys hamiltonii 08 Reptilia Chelonia Geoemydidae Hardella thurjii 09 Reptilia Chelonia Geoemydidae Pangshura tectum 10 Reptilia Chelonia Trionychidae Chitra indica Three-striped Roofed Turtle Red-crowned Roofed Turtle Spotted Pond Turtle Crowned River Turtle Indian Roofed Turtle Narrow-headed Softshell Turtle Local Name Habitat IUCN Red List Status Indian Wildlife Act, 1972 (Schedule) Appendix of CITES Samudra kachim Pelagic Endangered Schedule I Appendix I Bada samudra kachim Pelagic Endangered Schedule I Appendix I Gola kochchop / Jalpaironger kochchop / Pakhi kochchop / Samudrik katha Bala katha / Boro ketho / Ram kachim / Pora katha / Bali katha Pelagic Endangered Schedule I Appendix I Supra Littoral Critically Endangered Schedule I Appendix I Sada katha Littoral Endangered - Appendix II Adi kori katha Littoral Bagh kathua / Bhut katha / Kalo katha Least Concerned Schedule I Appendix I Littoral Vulnerable Schedule I Appendix I Boro katha / Kali katha Littoral Vulnerable - - Kori katha Littoral - Schedule I Appendix I Chitra / Dhush kachim / Gotajil Littoral Endangered Schedule IV Appendix II 11 Reptilia Chelonia Trionychidae Pelochelys Asian Giant Jata kachim Littoral - Schedule I - Page 51

201 Sr No. Class Order Family Species 12 Reptilia Chelonia Trionychidae 13 Reptilia Chelonia Trionychidae 14 Reptilia Chelonia Trionychidae 15 Reptilia Croco dylia Crocodylidae Common English Name cantorii Softshell Turtle Lissemys punctata Nilssonia gangetica Nilssonia hurum Crocodylus porosus Indian Flapshell Turtle Indian Softshell Turtle Indian Peacock Softshell Turtle Estuarine or Salt-water Crocodile Local Name Habitat Chip kathua / Chiti kachim / Mete kachim / Til kachim Ganga kachim / Kholua / Kaucha kachim / Kachrong kachim Dhalua kachim / Dhum kachim / Bukum Sunderbaner Kumir Littoral IUCN Red List Status Least Concerned Indian Wildlife Act, 1972 (Schedule) Appendix of CITES Schedule I Appendix II Littoral Vulnerable Schedule I Appendix I Littoral Vulnerable Schedule I Appendix I Marine occassional Lower Risk/least concern Schedule I Appendix I Sr No. Aquatic Mammalian species IUCN Red List Status Indian Wildlife Act, 1972 (Schedule) Appendix of CITES Local Status 1 Platanista gangetica (Lebeck, 1801) - Gangetic Dolphin Endangered Schedule I Appendix I DD 2 Orcaella brevirostris (Owen, 1866) - Irrawaddy Dolphin Vulnerable Schedule I Appendix I DD 3 Neophocaena phocaenoides (G. Cuvier, 1829) Little Porpoise Vulnerable Schedule I Appendix I DD Note: CR Critically Endangered; EN Endangered; LR Lower Risk; NO Not Threatened; DD Data Deficient Ref: In: IUCN IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version < Downloaded on 16 October Page 52

202 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix E: Country Report Indonesia

203 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Rastrelliger kanagurta Country Report: Indonesia Undertaken by 711-REG

204 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ENVIRONMENT SCALE, INTENSITY AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS PEOPLE MET FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine and bottom otter trawl fisheries, and set gillnets Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine Unit of Assessment: Bottom otter trawl Unit of Assessment: Gill net Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL Appendices APPENDIX A: REFERENCES Tables TABLE 1: FLEET SUMMARY... 3 TABLE 2: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR INDIAN MACKEREL... 7 TABLE 3: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR OTHER RETAINED SPECIES... 8 TABLE 4: LEVEL OF FISHERY EXPLOITATION BY MANAGEMENT AREA... 9 TABLE 5: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR INDIAN MACKEREL IN INDONESIA Figures FIGURE 1: BOBLME BOUNDARIES INDICATION COUNTRY EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONES... 1 FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF INDONESIAN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AREAS... 1 FIGURE 3: INDONESIA MARINE CAPTURE PRODUCTION BY SPECIES, FIGURE 4: TOTAL CAPTURE FISHERIES PRODUCTION FOR PROVINCES WITHIN BOBLME BOUNDARY, (TONNES)... 4 FIGURE 5: THE DISTRIBUTION OF CORAL GENERA IN INDONESIA (TOP) AND THE CORAL REEF CONDITION IN INDONESIA (BOTTOM) 6

205 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Acronyms APFIC ASEAN BOBLME BRKP CBFM CCRF COFI COREMAP CPUE DGCF DKP EAF(M) EU F FAD FAO FTDC GT IPOA IUU KG M MCS MEY MM MMAF MPA MSY MT NGO PSA RBF RBFM RFB RFMO TAC TED TURF Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission Association of Southeast Asian Nations Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Marine & Fisheries Research Organization Community Based Fisheries Management Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Committee on Fisheries Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program Catch per Unit of Effort Directorate General of Capture Fisheries Dinas Perikanan Provinsi Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (Management) European Union Fishing effort Fish aggregating device Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fishing Technology Development Centre Gross tonnage International Plan of Action Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing) Kilogrammes Metres Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Maximum Economic Yield Millimetres Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Marine Protected Area Maximum Sustainable Yield Metric Tons Non Governmental Organization Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Risk-Based Framework Rights Based Fisheries Management Regional Fisheries Body Regional Fisheries Management Organization Total Allowable Catch Turtle Exclusion Device Territorial use rights in fisheries

206 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem (BOBLME) project boundaries include the north western portion of Sumatra and cover four provinces: Aceh Province, North Sumatra Province, West Sumatra Province, and Riau Province (Figure 1). Two Indonesian fisheries management areas are present within the BOBLME boundary: No. 571 (Malacca Strait and Andaman Sea) and No. 572 (Indian Ocean and West Sumatra) as issued by Ministerial Decree No. 1/2009 (Figure 2). Figure 1: BOBLME boundaries indication country exclusive economic zones Source: BOBLME Project Figure 2: Location of Indonesian Fisheries Management Areas Source: Hutomo et al., 2009 Page 1

207 Based on Autonomy Law No. 32/2004 the administrative arrangement and responsibilities for three main areas of fisheries management are as follows: Coastal baseline to 4 nautical miles (inshore waters): District 4 12 nautical miles (territorial waters): Provincial nautical miles (to EEZ boundary): Central 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS The main gears operating within Indonesian waters that are inside the BOBLME area are purse seines, gill nets, trawl and hook and line. The number of Indonesian vessels by gear type and target species is presented in Table 1. The main characteristics of the fleet in Aceh Province, as found in a census undertaken by Lymer et al (2009), are that it comprises relatively newly built and highly motorized vessels, most of which have inboard engines. The fleet is largely privately owned and the vessels were acquired by private funding, although in 2005 and 2006 a large proportion of the new boats were provided by donors following the tsunami. The vessels mainly operate nearshore, between 0 and 3 nautical miles from the coast, and are not usually equipped with navigation or communication equipment, although many of the larger vessels carry both. The fishing fleet in Aceh Province can be summarized as comprising largely small boats (average 3.2 GT) with relatively small motors (average 16 Hp). There is a general trend of these small boats being replaced by larger vessels and hence the fleet tonnage has increased in recent years (Lymer et al, 2009). The main areas of fleet expansion are found in Provincial and District zones, where authorities continue to support open access fisheries (Banks et al, 2010). There are four main targeted fisheries for large pelagic species (namely tunas), demersal species, shrimp and small pelagic species. Indian mackerel are caught as part of the mixed small pelagic fishery which also lands a number of other species including Indo-Pacific mackerel and juvenile tunas. Indian mackerel are predominately targeted by 5-30GT purse seiners; although they are also taken as bycatch in the >30GT purse seine fishery targeting tuna, the demersal trawl fishery targeting shrimp and the gill net fisheries targeting demersal finfish. The purse seine fleet are split in to three categories in terms of management and location of fishing with vessels >30 GT generally operating outside 12 nautical miles and are managed by Central Government; vessels GT operating within territorial waters and managed at a Provincial level and vessels <10 GT operating within inshore waters and managed at a District level. Purse seine nets are typically 700m in length with mesh size 1 inch; larger vessels generally have on board fish finder; radio; mercury lamps ( KWh), 30 Halogen lamps (1.5 KWh), compass/gps and FAD. Page 2

208 Table 1: Fleet summary GT Main species Gear # vessels Sector Tunas Long line 936 EEZ Tunas Purse seine 50 EEZ Tunas Pole&line 65 EEZ Shrimp Trawl 90 EEZ/territorial Snapper Drift gill net, jig 5,359 EEZ Tunas and small pelagics Purse seine 10,433 Territorial limits Tunas Long line, pole & line 2,325 Territorial limits Finfish, squid Line, gill net, fish trawl, 43,500 Territorial limits drop line Tuna, reef finfish, squid, shrimp, Handline, troll. drift gill 500,000 Coastal waters crab & small pelagics (ikan terri) net, trap, lift net, trammel net Source: (Banks et al., 2010) > 30 GT 5-30GT 1.3 CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE Indonesian fleets harvest up to 4.7 million tonnes of marine fish annually with a value of US$3.4 billion (DG Capture Fisheries, 2007). Catches are recorded according to the main fishing areas Sumatra (28%), Maluku (20%), Sulawesi (19%), Java (19%), Kalimantan (7%), Bali and NTT (6%) (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2007). The majority of landings are recorded as other species followed by tunas, small pelagics and shrimp (Figure 3). Landings into the four provincial areas that border the BOBLME area totaled just under 768,000 tonnes in 2007 with approximately half landed into North Sumatra (Figure 4). Figure 3: Indonesia marine capture production by species, 2007 Source: Hutomo et al Page 3

209 Figure 4: Total Capture Fisheries Production for Provinces within BOBLME boundary, (Tonnes) Source: Badan Pusat Statistik, 2007 While eighty per cent of Indonesia s marine capture fisheries products are consumed domestically (FAO, 2010), it is understood that Indian mackerel is almost exclusively consumed domestically. Approximately 4 million people are employed in the marine capture fisheries sector. Participation in the harvesting sector is exclusive to males, while women play an important role in processing and a partial role in post-harvest distribution and domestic seafood processing (Banks et al., 2010). The small pelagics fishery which targets Indian mackerel is predominately undertaken in the Western part of Sumatra North (Kep. Banyak, Singkil to Simeleu, Sorkam, Barus, Bay of Tapanuli, Mursala Isl., Natal, Sikara-kara, Ilik Is, Pini Is., Kep. Batu, Telo Is.). The main ports of operation are Sibolga, Banda Aceh, Idie Rayeuk (Suwarso et al, 2010) Days fished varies by location: South Aceh 13,242 days/year; Centre Tapanuli 4,878 days/year; South Tapanuli 6,871 days/year; Sibolga 2,763 days/year, West Sumatra north 2,703 days/year. 1.4 ENVIRONMENT The marine and coastal biodiversity in Indonesia have been adversely degraded over the last few decades as a result of the direct use of coastal and marine resources (including fishing) and the indirect impacts of marine and land-based activities. This has led the Government of Indonesia to legally protect rare and endangered species under the Regulation No. 7/ Six, out of the seven species of turtle in the world, are found in Indonesian waters: green turtle Chelonia mydas, hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate, flatback turtle Natator depressus, leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea, loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta and olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea. The species distribution around Indonesia is known, with all six species present in Indian Ocean/West Sumatra management area and three (olive ridley, hawksbill and green) in the Malacca Straight/Andaman Sea management area. Nesting sites for green turtles are recorded in North West Sumatra with an annual nesting Page 4

210 population of up to 5,650. Leatherback turtles are also recorded to nest in this area, but at lower frequencies (Erdmann et al, 2009). Dugong Dugong dugon is protected under decree of the Minister of the Department of Agriculture No. 327/Kpts/Um/1972. Dugongs feed on seagrass and their distribution is largely limited to this habitat. While scientific information on the abundance and distribution of dugong in Indonesian waters is very limited, fishermen and locals report to have seen them at numerous locations, including the coastal areas of Riau Archipelago. Population estimates are also limited with a population size of 10,000 reported in 1970s and 1,000 in 1994 (Hutomo et al. 2009). Latest information from the Indonesian Seagrass Committee (2004) reported sightings of dugongs associated with seagrass in the Riau Archipelago. De Longh (1996) reports the two major threats to dugongs in Indonesian waters to be capture in fishing nets and destruction of seagrass habitats. The decline is however thought to be mainly due to targeted hunting of this species, rather than incidental capture. There are an estimated 31 or more species of whales and dolphins that inhabit Indonesian waters (Wagey and Arifin, 2008). The blue whale Balaenoptera musculus, finback whale B. physalis and humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae are fully protected, as are all dolphin species. The distribution for large scale habitat priorities for whales and dolphins are predominately recorded in central and eastern Indonesian waters, outside the BOBLME area where data deficiency means distribution is unknown. One fish species, coelacanth Latimria manadoensis, and sixteen invertebrate species have protected status, however some of them are widely exploited including giant clams and large snails (Moosa et al, 1996 as cited in Hutomo et al, 2009). Indonesia contains about 14% of the world s reefs, which are distributed unevenly from Sabang to Merauke with the highest concentration around Sulawesi and Banda seas. In 1998, the Indonesian government launched the Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) with the objective to enhance the health of coral reefs and to improve the welfare of coastal communities depending on coral reefs. The first National Policy, strategy and action plan was established in 2001 and implemented in 15 districts of 7 provinces. Scientific monitoring of coral reefs and socio-economic condition of dependent surrounding communities were carried out. Results indicated an improving trend in terms of live coral cover (Figure 5). The main threats to coral reefs are considered to be destructive fishing, bleaching events and pollution (Suharsono, 2007). Page 5

211 Figure 5: The Distribution of Coral genera in Indonesia (top) and the Coral Reef Condition in Indonesia (bottom) Source: Suharsono, 2008 Page 6

212 1.5 SCALE, INTENSITY AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS A first step in a Risk Based Framework for assessing data-poor fisheries is to determine the scale and intensity of the fishery. This is then used with the Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) which is provided in detail for Indian mackerel in the main report in order to determine the overall risk to the stock. A summary of the PSA for Indian mackerel is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for Indian Mackerel Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (Fishbase) Species Gear Purse seine High <60 Btm Indian Otter Mackerel trawl High <60 Gill nets Low >80 Source: Poseidon Based on the PSA assessment, Indian mackerel is shown to be highly productive with a minimum population doubling time less than 15 months (Fishbase, 2010). Indian mackerel is highly susceptible to being caught by the purse seine and trawl fleets. Vessels deploying these gears are likely to overlap > 30% of the natural distribution of Indian mackerel, as well as having a high overlap with the habitat and depth range inhabited by this species. Due to the mesh sizes of these gears, they have a low selectivity in that most fish encountered will be captured. From a stock status perspective both purse seine and trawl fisheries are considered to be high risk to Indian mackerel. The gillnet fishery however, is predominately carried out in the coastal areas and so has a lower risk score based on availability and encounterability attributes. While selectivity scores poorly due to the small mesh sizes compared to the fish length, overall the impact of this fishery on the stock is considered low risk. A PSA has also been undertaken for other species that are likely to be captured in conjunction with the small pelagic fishery, including Indo Pacific mackerel and tuna species. These results are presented in Table 3. Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Page 7

213 Table 3: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for other retained species Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (Fishbase) Species Gear Purse seine Med Indopacific Btm Otter mackerel trawl Med Gill nets Low >80 Skipjack Purse tuna seine Med Longtail Purse tuna seine High <60 Frigate Purse tuna seine High <60 Bigeye Purse tuna seine Med Bullet tuna Purse seine High <60 Eastern Purse little tuna seine High <60 Yellowfin Purse tuna seine High <60 Source: Poseidon An analysis undertaken by Indonesian Research Organizations and reported in Hutomo et al (2009) assessed the level of fishery exploitation and stock status for the four major fisheries (small pelagic, big pelagic, demersal and shrimp) by management area (Table 4). In the Malacca Straight and Andaman Sea area small pelagics are classified as fully exploited due to purse seine vessels and illegal fishing. While the status of large pelagics is unknown, it is thought that based on current CPUE and their highly migratory behavior, there may be potential for further exploitation if CPUE is closely monitored. Both demersal fish and shrimps are considered overfished based on uncontrolled operations in water depths more than 20m, modification to trawl gear and illegal fishing. In the West Sumatra and Indian Ocean management area, tuna long lining forms the main fishing gear with large pelagic considered fully exploited. Small pelagic species that inhabit the coastal waters are thought to be underexploited, with potential opportunities for purse seine vessels. Both the demersal fish and shrimp fisheries are considered fully exploited. Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Page 8

214 Table 4: Level of fishery exploitation by management area Fishery Management Areas WPP 571 Malacca Straight and Andaman Sea WPP 572 Indian Ocean, West Sumatra and Sunda Strait Fishery Stock status Notes Small Pelagic Fully exploited Fishing gears purse seine, illegal fishing Big Pelagic Uncertain Especially northern Malacca strait Demersal Overfished Uncontrolled fishing in depths more than 20m, adaption to trawl gears, illegal fishing Shrimp Overfished Illegal fishing Small Pelagic Moderate Especially oceanic small pelagic Big Pelagic Fully exploited Fishing ground in EEZ to the high seas Demersal Fully exploited Relatively narrow fishing ground, untapped Shrimp Fully exploited Relatively narrow fishing ground, untapped Source: Poseidon (based on analysis from the Indonesian Research Organization) Page 9

215 1.6 PEOPLE MET Consultation was undertaken from 4 th -5 th October 2010 in Jakarta and Banda Aceh. The following people were met and consulted: Name Title and Organization Contact details Location of meeting Hary Christijanto Directorate of Fisheries Resources, Directorate General of Capture Fisheries (DGCF) hchristijanto@yahoo.com Jakarta Tuti Hariati Suhariyanto Research Institute for Marine Fisheries Fishing Technology Development Centre (FTDC), Jalan Muarabaru Ujung Jakarta J1. Yos Sudarso Kali Baru Barat, Pelabuhan Tanjung Emas, Samarang Jakarta Jakarta Aris Budiarto Directorate of Fisheries Jakarta Resources, DGCF, MMAF S. Kamarijas Directorate of Fisheries Jakarta Resources, DGCF Eric Malyad FTDC J1. Yos Sudarso Kali Baru Jakarta Barat, Pelabuhan Tanjung Emas, Samarang H. B. Ganef Directorate of Fisheries Jakarta Resources, DGCF Mur Bambaug FTDC J1. Yos Sudarso Kali Baru Jakarta Barat, Pelabuhan Tanjung Emas, Samarang Dr. T. Raiful Provincial Marine and Banda Aceh Fisheries Agency Dwi Person Panglima Laot Lhok Krueng Banda Aceh Aceh team support for mapping Arif Fadhila Panglima Loat Lhok Krueng Banda Aceh Aceh Yusrizal (Ayi) Community Based panglimalaot@gmail.com Banda Aceh Bathymetric Survey Panglima Loat Lhok Krueng Aceh Project Officer Ruslan Panglima Laot Lhok Krueng Aceh Banda Aceh Page 10

216 2 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL For the purpose of this assessment, three main units of assessment are defined as follows: 1. Purse seine 5-30GT vessels with 1 inch mesh size targeting small pelagic with Indian mackerel as one of the target species and purse seine >30GT vessels with 1 inch mesh size targeting tunas and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. 2. Bottom otter trawl fishery with 1 inch mesh size targeting shrimp and demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. 3. Set gillnet fishery with mesh sizes ranging from 1 to 8 inches targeting demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. There are no hilsa shad catches reported in Indonesia, so this report does not cover hilsa. 2.1 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine and bottom otter trawl fisheries, and set gillnets PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Purse seine & btm trawl Gill nets Target spp. status Target spp. status Fishbase, FAO fact sheets, Hariati & Sadhotomo (2005), Hutomo et al (2009), Interview Hariati Fishbase, FAO fact sheets, Hariati & Sadhotomo (2005), Hutomo et al (2009), Interview Hariati Purse seine and bottom otter trawl Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta has been assessed using the RBF PSA methodology. The species has a high productivity, with a maximum age of 4-5 years and an estimated population doubling time of 15 months. They are pelagic broadcast spawners and have a trophic level of While this species scores well under productivity attributes, it does not under selectivity. It is likely to be fished over most of its geographic and depth range. Being a neritic species with common distribution from 20-90m depth, it is likely to have high encounterability with fisheries. The current mesh sizes that are used throughout Indonesia (with the exception of Sabang) are 1 inch and therefore selectivity is low. Partial stock assessments have been undertaken using catch per unit effort data (CPUE) collated from specific provinces around Sumatra with data for , , , (Hariati pers. comm., 2010). It is indicated that landings of Indian mackerel are increasing, however CPUE is decreasing. In the mid-90s the stock assessment revealed that fishing mortality was at 60%, which was 10% above MSY. No recent assessments have been undertaken (Hariati pers. comm., 2010). It is unknown if there are separate regional Indian mackerel stocks, or one Bay of Bengal stock. Page 11

217 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Reference points (not if RBF) Stock rebuilding Hutomo et al (2009) assessed small pelagic species within management area 571 (Malacca Strait and Andaman Sea) to be fully exploited and within 572 (Indian Ocean and West Sumatra) to be at a moderate level of exploitation. It is unknown how these conclusions have been drawn. Set gill nets In contrast to purse seine and trawl fisheries, the gill net fishery scores well under selectivity. This is due to the gill net fishery operating only in coastal waters and at the coastal fringes of the Indian mackerel distribution. The gill net fisheries are highly likely to have less than a 10% overlap with the range of this species, both in terms of its geographic and depth range. Due to the current mesh sizes in operation, the selectivity is low. Applying the RBF PSA methodology to this fishery results in an overall low impact of gill nets on the Indian mackerel stock. Stock status therefore scores good. n/a Due to the lack of stock assessment, there are no limit or target reference points for stock management and Bmsy (the biomass at which Maximum Sustainable Yield, is achieved) is unknown. Not expected to be rebuilding, and as RBF used to score and no score is given Harvest strategy Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools n/a Interviews DGCF, FTDC, Research Institute There is no harvest strategy in place for the fishery that combines monitoring, harvest control rules and management actions. One measure in place relates to minimum mesh size of 1 inch, however the level of compliance is unknown and this is not considered appropriate to manage the fishery. Interviews DGCF, FTDC, Research Institute There are no harvest control rules and tools in place that specifically manage the removal of Indian mackerel. There are TACs in place for some species, but with little enforcement, and knowledge of this is completely lacking at a Provincial level. Regulations stipulate a minimum mesh size of 1 inch, although the extent of compliance is unknown. Anecdotal information suggests fishermen use mesh of 0.75 inch to prevent damage to fish. This mesh size does not manage the level of Indian mackerel removals. Page 12

218 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Information / monitoring Stock Assessment (not if RBF) While there is zonal management in place to some extent, which restricts access to District waters (out to 4 nautical miles) where only vessels <10 GT can operate, this fleet also targets Indian mackerel. Interviews DGCF, FTDC, Research Institute There are currently no logbooks in operation, although there are plans to introduce them for purse seiners >30GT. Landing statistics are collated at point of sale from auction sales notes and/or area officer recording stats. There is no gear differentiation within landing statistics for Indian mackerel See also comments in on information on stock status. Using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) this would normally be scored a default Intermediate status. However given the lack information on which to base a stock assessment and the lack of management drivers to demand an assessment of this stock, it is scored as weak. n/a Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance There is a lack of knowledge on many aspects relating to the stock status of Indian mackerel in Indonesia. The existence of genetically distinct stocks and associated boundaries are unknown. Accurate assessments of stock biomass are not available and any data on stock assessments have been collated sporadically and from different locations at different times. No recent reference points have been defined and there is no harvest strategy or harvest control rules and tools in place to manage the fishery, other than a minimum mesh size which (at the current size) is not appropriate to manage the Indian mackerel stock. While detailed landing statistics have been provided for the Aceh Province for 2008, there is no indication that records of this type exist for other Provincial areas or indeed that data collation will continue for Aceh Province due to lack of resources. National data is aggregated into a small pelagic grouping and there is not appropriate reporting for individual species or by gear types. Page 13

219 2.1.3 Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses Specific recommendations to address weaknesses highlighted above include: Support to planned and future genetic studies to determine Indian mackerel stock units; Provide training and capacity building on stock assessment methodologies for small pelagic species; Undertake coordinated and complete stock assessments on a regular (annual) basis to determine stock status of Indian mackerel and establish appropriate reference points; Collect data on landings by species for all vessel sizes and gear types. Ensure appropriate detail to allow analysis of catch/effort and size composition; Ensure successful implementation of logbook scheme for >30GT vessels and explore potential to introduce this to smaller vessels such as those operating in territorial waters; and Develop appropriate harvest control rules (such as increase in mesh size). Page 14

220 2.2 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained species Retained spp. Status Retained spp. management Indonesian Research Organization, Hutomo et al 2009, Fishbase Based on landing statistics collated for Aceh Province it is known that a number of small pelagic species and juvenile tunas are taken within the purse seine fishery in territorial waters, and that Indian mackerel are landed in conjunction with a number of tuna species by the purse seine fleet operating outside territorial waters. Indo pacific mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma is one of the main small pelagic species landed with R. kanaguta. As reported by Hutomo et al (2009) the Indonesian Research Organization classifies the small pelagic stock to be fully exploited in the Malacca Straight and Andaman and underexploited in West Sumatra and Indian Ocean (see Table 4). A PSA assessment supports that the purse seine fishery is of low risk to Indo Pacific mackerel. Large pelagic species recorded include skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis, longtail Thunnus tonggol, frigate Auxis thazard, bigeye Thunnus obesus, bullet A. rochei, eastern little Euthynnus affinis and yellowfin T. albacares. The Indonesian Research Organization classifies large pelagic to be potentially under exploited in the Malacca Straight and Andaman Sea and fully exploited in West Sumatra and Indian Ocean, but this is primarily due to long line fisheries. Overall the PSA finds the purse seine fishery to be medium to high risk. In balance, for all retained species, an intermediate score is therefore attributed. Interviews DGCF, FTDC, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot There is no effective management of the small pelagic purse seine fishery. The minimum mesh size of 1 inch is not appropriate to control the volume or size of fish landed and juveniles are expected to be landed in high proportions to enter the fish supplement and fish oil trade. The effect on recruitment for these small pelagic species due to high juvenile catch rates is unknown. There are no other controls over the size of fish landed or the volumes landed. A mesh size of 4 inches is used for nets deployed around Sabang Island as part of a voluntary agreement. This is to protect spawning areas and is in response to Coral Cay Conservation project in the area. While this is commendable it is unknown the extent of compliance or whether any positive effects have been measurable. Page 15

221 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained spp. Information Discard species Discard spp. Status Discard spp. Management Discard spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status ETP spp. Management Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Landing statistics have been provided to indicate landings by species and total landings by gear type for Aceh Province. This has allowed determination of likely retained species. However, data is not available for species landed by gear types or area. It is also unknown what level of data is available for other Provincial areas or whether data collection can continue in Aceh Province due to lack of resources. Interviews Panglima Laot Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. Interviews DGCF, FTDC Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimization management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would thus benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Kirby, 2006 Potential purse seine interaction with ETP species is likely to be limited to dolphins and turtles, both of which are released alive prior to hauling nets. A high survivability rate (>90%) is expected. A risk assessment in the Pacific Ocean (Kirby, 2006) indicates that sharks are the highest risk group in purse seines at greatest risk are the low fecundity silky shark, short-finned mako, porbeagle, and oceanic whitetip rather than the more fecund blue sharks and hammerheads. These shark species are at more risk from the tuna fisheries than the small pelagic fisheries since they often trail schools of tuna for prey. Overall the risk of the small pelagic purse seine fishery is of intermediate concern, based primarily on shark interactions. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Provincial Marine and Page 16

222 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot There are no known management procedures to avoid interaction with ETP species. There is potential to enhance release procedures associated with dolphin and turtles through a fleet-wide code of conduct. Based on outcomes of observer programmes (see below) management measures should be developed to limit interactions with protected shark species. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Hutomo et al, 2009 Data on presence and distribution of ETP species is available. However, data specific to purse seine interaction with ETP species is lacking. In particular observer data to monitor shark bycatch in Indonesian fisheries is rare and effort should be focused to address this issue across the fleet. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Habitat Management Habitat impacts from this surface pelagic fishery are highly likely to be minimal. Lost gear is rare, although the occasional FAD is lost. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Habitat Information Due to minimal impact, management strategies are not necessary Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Ecosystems Ecosystem Status A Community Based Bathymetric Survey is currently in operation for Aceh Province through the voluntary use of sonar and GPS to map bathymetry and habitats. While significant areas have been monitored, the survey coverage is dependent on fishing vessels and therefore is not complete. This provides an excellent example of community based research to map habitat resources. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Fishbase The fishery catches a wide range of species including high rates of Page 17

223 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information juveniles, which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is no ecosystem modeling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute No specific ecosystem management measures are undertaken at national level. However, there are closed areas for habitat protection and turtle management measures, although the latter could definitely be improved. Current levels of removals of small pelagic species are not considered to be heavily over exploited; furthermore most small pelagic species have a short population doubling time. Despite this, management of the indirect effect of removing target and retained species from the food web requires management measures, which would also be applicable for retained species. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute Total removals are not well known for all Provinces within the BOBLME area, and those provided may be underestimated for the smaller vessels. There is little information on the ecological impacts of this fishery and ecosystem modeling has not been undertaken Unit of Assessment: Bottom otter trawl PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained species Retained spp. Status Retained spp. management Indonesian Research Organization, Hutomo et al 2009, Fishbase The bottom otter trawls are predominately targeting shrimps and demersal fish. Indian mackerel are taken as bycatch when the nets are hauled through the water column. The demersal fish species associated with this fishery are unknown. As reported by Hutomo et al (2009) the Indonesian Research Organization classifies the demersal fish and shrimp stocks to be over exploited in the Malacca Straight and Andaman and fully exploited in West Sumatra and Indian Ocean (see Table 4). Interviews DGCF, FTDC, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot There is no effective management of the bottom otter trawl fishery. The minimum mesh size of 1 inch is not appropriate to control the volume or size of fish landed and juveniles are expected to be landed in high proportions to enter the fish supplement and fish oil trade. The Page 18

224 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained spp. Information Discard species Discard spp. Status Discard spp. Management Discard spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status effect on recruitment for these small pelagic species due to high juvenile catch rates is unknown. There are no other controls over the size of fish landed or the volumes landed. A mesh size of 4 inches is used for nets deployed around Sabang Island as part of a voluntary agreement. This is to protect spawning areas and is in response to Coral Cay Conservation project in the area. While this is commendable it is unknown the extent of compliance or whether any positive effects have been measurable. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Landing statistics have been provided to indicate landings by species and total landings by gear type for Aceh Province. However, data is not available for species landed by gear types or area. It is also unknown what level of data is available for other Provincial areas or whether data collection can continue in Aceh Province due to lack of resources. Interviews Panglima Laot Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. Interviews DGCF, FTDC Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimization management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Demersal trawl gear in this area is likely to incidentally catch turtles. While the main disturbance and threat to turtles is likely to be from impacts occurring at nesting sites, the bycatch of turtles in shrimp trawls is reported to be high. An average of 11 sea turtles per shrimp vessel (Sorong based fleet) was revealed for 2005 and 6.5 turtles were caught on average as by-catch in Shrimp vessel crew confirm these numbers and admitted that, on average, 2-20 sea turtles were incidentally caught during the trawl Page 19

225 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) operations. Overall the risk of the bottom otter trawl fishery is of intermediate concern, based on turtle interactions. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Zainudin et al 2007 For the shrimp trawls, it appears that application of the legally required Turtle Excluder Devices (TED), By-catch Excluder Devices (BED), and Juvenile and Turtle Excluder Devices (JTED) is not well enforced. It is reported that when observers are onboard the devices are deployed with the result of zero turtle bycatch, but when not onboard bycatch is again significant. The additional income that crew get as bonus from capturing demersal fish is the main reason for not applying the TEDs in shallow waters. No other management measures are in place to protect ETP species. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Hutomo et al, 2009 Data on the presence and distribution of ETP species is available. However, data specific to demersal trawl interaction with ETP species is lacking. In particular observer data to monitor turtle bycatch would be beneficial to establish the true extent of status and required management measures. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Habitat Management Habitat impacts from this bottom otter trawl fishery are likely to be significant. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Habitat Information Strategies are in place to manage the habitat impact through closed areas to protect coral reefs. However the extent and spatial distribution of protected areas is unknown, as is the level of compliance for the demersal trawl fleet to abstain from fishing within these areas. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Hutomo et al 2009 Page 20

226 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information A Community Based Bathymetric Survey is currently in operation for Aceh Province through the voluntary use of sonar and GPS to map bathymetry and habitats. While significant areas have been monitored, the survey coverage is dependent on fishing vessels and therefore is not complete. This provides an excellent example of community based research to map habitat resources. Coral reef distribution and species abundance is also known and mapped for Indonesia. The highest levels of coral diversity are found in central and eastern Indonesia. Of note, corals are known to grow better in locations quite far from Sumatra mainland (Hutomo et al, 2009). Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Fishbase The fishery catches a wide range of species including high rates of juveniles, which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is not ecosystem modeling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. Demersal trawling gear also indiscriminately removes of a wide range of species and is not as targeted as other gears. The fishery therefore scores poorly for ecosystem status. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute No ecosystem management measures are undertaken at national level. Due to the higher degree of indirect effects associated with habitat impacts the fishery scores worse than other gear types. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute Total removals are not well known for all Provinces within the BOBLME area, and those provided may be underestimated for the smaller vessels. There is little information on the ecological impacts of the removal of target and retained species by this fishery and ecosystem modeling has not been undertaken. Despite this the general structure of the food web, associated trophic levels and key elements of the ecosystem are understood. Sufficient information on the overall impact of trawling gear on the wider ecosystem can be inferred and is sufficient to allow appropriate management measures to be implemented Unit of Assessment: Gill net PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained species Page 21

227 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained spp. Status Indonesian Research Organization, Hutomo et al 2009, Fishbase The coastal gill net fisheries are predominately targeting demersal fish with small proportional of Indian mackerel and other small pelagic species taken as bycatch. The demersal fish species associated with this fishery are unknown. As reported by Hutomo et al (2009) the Indonesian Research Organization classifies the demersal fish to be over exploited in the Malacca Straight and Andaman and fully exploited in West Sumatra and Indian Ocean (see Table 4) Retained spp. management Retained spp. Information Discard species Discard spp. Status Discard spp. Management Discard spp. Information Interviews DGCF, FTDC, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot As a mixed fishery there is no specific management in the gill net fishery to limit capture of retained fish species. The mesh sizes in use are reported to range from 1-8 inches. The small mesh size of some gill nets suggests a high bycatch of juvenile fish which may affect recruitment for these species. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Landing statistics have been provided to indicate landings by species and total landings by gear type for Aceh Province. However, data is not available for species landed by gear types or area. It is also unknown what level of data is available for other Provincial areas or whether data collection can continue in Aceh Province due to lack of resources. However much of the gill net fleet is made up of smaller vessels that operate from smaller ports where landings data collection is less rigorous. Interviews Panglima Laot Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. Interviews DGCF, FTDC Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimization management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been Page 22

228 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP species ETP spp. Status ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Hutomo et al Interaction of gill nets with dugong is considered to be a major threat to this species (Hutomo et al. 2009). Bycatch of turtles is also likely to be significant and interactions with dolphin and shark species are inevitable. Gill nets with a larger mesh size are likely to have higher mortality rates, compared to those with smaller mesh sizes of 1 inch. Fisheries with a longer soak time will also have more significant interaction. Entanglement of turtles with lines and surface marker buoys may also occur as a result of turtles to mistaking floats for jellyfish and becoming entangled. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot There are no known management procedures. There are closed areas for coral reef protection, but it is unknown if these are complete notake zones for all gears. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Hutomo et al, 2009 Data on presence and distribution of ETP species is available. However, data specific to gill net interactions with ETP species is lacking. In particular observer data to monitor turtle, shark, dugong and dolphin bycatch would be beneficial to establish true extent of status and required management measures. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Habitat impacts as a result of the gear are considered minimal. The interaction of bottom set gill nets is limited to the weights and bottom line touching the seabed. However, lost nets do have the potential to impact coral reefs, but rates of loss are not thought to be a major issue (although are known) Habitat Interviews Provincial Marine and Page 23

229 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Management Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Habitat Information Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information Strategies are in place to manage the habitat impact through closed areas to protect coral reefs. However the extent and spatial distribution of protected areas is unknown, as is the extent to which gill netters are excluded. No management structure exists to control the potential loss of gear e.g. due to rigging and gear failure. Nor is there a code of practice for gear retrieval or reporting of lost gear incidents. Interviews Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot Hutomo et al 2009 A Community Based Bathymetric Survey is currently in operation for Aceh Province through the voluntary use of sonar and GPS to map bathymetry and habitats. While significant areas have been monitored, the survey coverage is dependent on fishing vessels and therefore is not complete. This provides an excellent example of community based research to map habitat resources. Coral reef distribution and species abundance is also known and mapped for Indonesia. The highest levels of coral diversity are found in central and eastern Indonesia. Of note, corals are known to grow better in locations quite far from Sumatra mainland (Hutomo et al, 2009). The extent of lost gear incidents is unknown. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute, Fishbase The fishery catches a wide range of species including high rates of juveniles in gill nets of smaller mesh sizes (1 inch), which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is no ecosystem modeling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute No ecosystem management measures are undertaken at national level. Interviews DGCF, Research Institute Total removals are not well known for all Provinces within the BOBLME area, and those provided may be underestimated for the smaller vessels, that are more likely to be deploying gill nets. There is little information on the ecological impacts of this fishery and ecosystem modeling has not been undertaken. Page 24

230 2.2.4 Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key problems across all gear types relate to the status and management of retained species. The current mesh size for purse seine and trawl gear (and some gill nets) is 1 mesh which results in high catch rates of juveniles. This is likely to have implications for recruitment and is likely to lead to growth overfishing and possibly ecosystem overfishing. Landings data is not collected at a sufficient level to determine the total removals at species and gear levels and underreporting is expected in the smaller vessels. The lack of discarding within these fisheries is considered a key strength; however this is primarily due to the landing of all fish including juveniles which itself is due to a lack of retained species management. Any measures introduced to manage retained species (such as TACs) should ensure that the negligible discard rate is maintained. Little is known about the extent of interaction with ETP species and no measures exist to manage this at a fishery level. Habitat impacts are predominately by the trawling fleet, although lost gear from the gill net fleet may also damage corals. There is little information on the ecological role of Indian mackerel, its response to natural fluctuations and the impact of its removal from the ecosystem. Ecosystem modeling has not been undertaken Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses Key recommendations from the above assessment and key findings are: Develop management of retained species through more selective fishing gear e.g. introduction of larger mesh sizes which would allow juveniles to escape; Ensure consistent and robust data collation of fishery landing statistics at all fleet levels; Establish a program to identify and prioritize key areas to be designated as marine reserves to protect fish spawning areas, ETP species and habitat protection (coral and seagrass). This should include seasonally closed areas, areas restricted to certain gear types and complete closures; Establish a program for on-board observers to monitor and report on interactions with ETP species for all gear types. Use this information to shape any necessary measures to manage unacceptable interactions; Substantiate current release practices through a code of conduct for ETP interactions including techniques to releases animals and reporting templates to record frequency and location of interactions. A guide to fishermen on how to identify ETP species, particularly sharks, would also be helpful; Establish ecosystem based management through the development of ecosystem criteria for management of small pelagic fisheries, and the consideration of species interactions (e.g. predator prey) in management; and Improve participation in international conventions to ensure improved management practices adhering to the Precautionary Principle and Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management. Page 25

231 2.3 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Governance and policy Legal Framework Interviews DGCF, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot; Banks et al, 2010, FAO, 2010, FAO, 2000 The institutional basis for fisheries management operates on a decentralized scheme consisting of three pillars: Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) in Jakarta, Dinas Perikanan Provinsi (DKP), in 33 Provinces and 250 or more DKD, District administrations. The Ministry, in the devolution of authority to the provinces and districts, is required to assume a facilitation and coordination role to guide these authorities in the management of their respective jurisdictions, consistent with national laws. The Ministry then focuses on implementation of these policies, through fisheries legislation for the offshore fisheries, i.e. vessels fishing outside 12 nautical miles or over 30 GTs. The current national core fisheries laws are enshrined in Law (UU) No. 25/2004 concerning Planning System for National Development, UU No. 31/2004 concerning Fisheries and the Presidential regulation No. 7/2005 concerning the National Development Plan for medium phase (RPJMN) during year of , and modified by Act No. 45/2010. In relation to this performance indicator the following queries remain outstanding: How capable is the legal framework of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with Principles 1 and 2? To what extent does it observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood? e.g. implicitly, is it required to do so in law? Does it incorporate an appropriate dispute resolution framework, and how transparent is any such mechanism? e.g. Panglima Laot Consultation Interviews DGCF, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot; The decentralization which began in 2001 gave key administrative responsibilities to Provinces and Districts. Consultation and communication at Provincial and District levels are well established. Within Aceh Province there are approximately 193 Panglima Laot, which are typically located at an estuary or a harbor. Panglima Laot is a fishermen s institution which has played a dominant role in governing the fishing industry in Aceh for over four centuries. The traditional institution is composed of a loose network of localized fishermen associations that follow a strict set of rules and regulations. The term "Panglima Laot" is both the name of the institution as well as the title of the elder fishermen who leads the organization. The Panglima Loat communicate changes in regulations to the fishing industry. They have regular weekly meetings and provide an important framework for regular consultation between Government and fishermen. Page 26

232 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Long-term Objectives In relation to this performance indicator the following query remains outstanding: To what extent are the roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals who are involved in the management process clear, understood and/or implicitly/explicitly defined, for/by all relevant parties? Interviews DGCF, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot; Banks et al, 2010 Indonesia s domestic and international fisheries policy objectives are set by a Fisheries Master Plan, produced every 5 years. The current version is due to expire in The political emphasis on the plan is to promote growth in aquaculture, as well as through export promotion. It is not clear from the Master Plan, how such a policy balances with the need for food security, and the drive to develop fisheries, to fuel the initiative. In relation to this performance indicator the following query remains outstanding: Can the Master Plan be provided to allow us to quote from policy to show any reference or use of the words: long-term, sustainability and the precautionary approach? Incentives Interviews DGCF, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency and Panglima Laot No incentives to promote sustainable fishing (e.g. rights based mechanisms, subsidies for environmentally-friendly technologies and gear selectivity) are thought to be in place. Disincentives include fuel subsides and provision of many cheap/free inputs following the tsunami without proper control and consideration of their impacts. Fishery specific management Fishery Objectives Decision making processes Banks et al 2010 Indonesia has had a requirement, as part of its National Law 31/2004 to implement fishery specific management plans. MMAF has identified 44 management units in 11 Fishery management areas. Each unit divided into demersal, shrimp, small pelagic and tunas. Currently three test cases are being explored by MMAF for implementation via management groups that are being set up for each case study. However, at the present time however there is no Indian mackerel specific management plan, nor one covering all small pelagic species. Interviews DGCF, Provincial Marine and Fisheries Agency. Banks et al 2010 The structures for supporting decisions making processes appear to be in place, but these do not result in measures and strategies to achieve fishery specific objectives and no management plans have been implemented. No processes currently exist to link scientific outputs into management decision-making. Furthermore decision-making process affecting Page 27

233 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Compliance & Enforcement management of Indian mackerel specifically, and small pelagics more generally, are weak or nonexistent. Banks et al 2010, Panglima Laot, 2008 The Directorate General for Marine Affairs Resource Controlling and Fisheries Surveillance is the central coordinating body for civil investigation compliance in Indonesia. Separate responsibilities are allocated to the Indonesian Navy and Marine Police. Port offices issue fishing permits for all vessels over 5 GT, and as such have extended their MCS role to cover boats licensed by the Provinces. The Directorate of Fisheries Resources Directorate General of Capture Fisheries and The Directorate General for Marine Affairs Resource Controlling and Fisheries Surveillance share responsibility for catch certificate, recording / monitoring, and reporting respectively. Within Aceh Province, the Panglima Laot are responsible for assigning parking places in the river, arbitrating disputes, determining damages should one fishermen s boat damage another, communicating changes in fishing regulations, organizing rescues as well as maintaining general order. Should a fisherman violate the code of conduct, the Panglima Laot has the authority to ground the boat for a week at a time, if the fisherman were to continue to disobey the rules they can be banished from the Panglima Laot. At a Central Government level, within Indonesian EEZ waters there are reported to be considerable levels of IUU by boats largely from Thailand, Philippines and Malaysia. In relation to this performance indicator the following query remains outstanding: What sort of evidence is there to determine whether fishers are compliant, and how compliant are they thought to be? i.e. what sort of records are kept. Page 28

234 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Research Plan Banks et al, Performance Evaluation Indonesia s main fisheries scientific organization is the Marine & Fisheries Research Organization (BRKP). BRKP is responsible for the coordination of sub institutes including the Marine, Open waters, Conservation & stock enhancement (BRPL), Fisheries Technology and Research Centre for Social economics. Currently only a small number of species-specific fisheries research plans exist in Indonesia. Targeted assistance is required within MMAF and the decentralized organizations to support the capacity to develop and implement further fishery-specific research plans. Scope exists to develop fishery specific plans for a number of species groupings, including tuna (regional), small pelagics, shrimp and demersal species and possibly other small scale species. There are no specific Indian mackerel or small pelagic research plans. Such plans would be required to address the information needs of any future management plan. Furthermore, data and information resulting from any future research plan should be provided on a regular basis to ensure appropriate adaptation of any future management plan. The intermediate score is considered appropriate based on the structure and ability within the current research institute. Further support is necessary both in terms of financial funding for research assessments to take place and capacity building to develop consistently robust research plans and assessment methodologies. Banks et al, 2010 There are no specific Indian mackerel or small pelagic management plans and therefore no plans to evaluate. MMAF do however provide a guide for consistent implementation according to general fisheries legislation and implementation of this is checked, National to Province, and Province to District, through annual audit processes Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key weaknesses are the lack of specific management plans and control measures in relation to fisheries for small pelagic species. While it is stated that TACs are set, it is unclear for which species these are applicable or which fleets comply. There is no evidence of implementation and monitoring of TACs at the Provincial level. Open access remains, particularly for artisanal and coastal fishing sectors and there are reported to be considerable levels of IUU by boats largely from Thailand, Philippines and Malaysia. Due to the geographical extent of Indonesia, spanning several sea areas and regional administrative areas, there has been devolution of some fisheries management and monitoring to state level. This makes it difficult to re-aggregate these aspects at a national level to ensure consistency in their application. Page 29

235 2.3.2 Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses Specific recommendations for improvement across Indonesian fisheries have been reviewed in detail by Banks et al (2010). Those of key relevance for Indian mackerel include: Setting and implementing a national management plan for small pelagics Improving data collection, collation and cross checking systems and update fishery statistics system; Properly review the assessment that have been undertaken for small pelagic resources; Design a comprehensive plan for future assessments to be undertaken on a regular basis; Clearly define the respective roles of the research institutions involved in stock assessments; Improve funding for scientific research and monitoring, to improve coverage and quality of current information collection systems and strengthen scientific input into decision making Establish processes to link scientific outputs into management decision-making Page 30

236 2.4 SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL The table below provides a summary of the performance for Indian mackerel in Indonesia Table 5: Summary performance table for Indian Mackerel in Indonesia Principle 1: Stock status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Unit of Assessment Outcome Harvest strategy Retained Discards ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific mang Gear Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding if necessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discards status Discards management Discards info / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation Purse seine 0 0 n/a Bottom otter trawl 0 0 n/a Gill nets 2 0 n/a Page 31

237 Appendix A: References Badan Pusat Statistik, (2007). Banks R., Souter., D., McDonald C., and Williams M. (2010), A Framework for Fisheries Development Assistance in South East Asia (Country Reports), Issued by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on behalf of the Members of the Regional Plan of Action, DAFF 176/09. Collette, B.B. and C.E. Nauen (1983). FAO Species Catalogue. Vol. 2. Scombrids of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of tunas, mackerels, bonitos and related species known to date. FAO Fish. Synop. 125(2). 137 p. De Longh, H. H. (1996) Plant-herbivore interactions between seagrass and dugongs in a tropical small island ecosystem. Departemen Kelautan Dan Perikanan (2005). Law of the Rep of Indonesia concerning fisheries, No 31, 2004, DirektoratJenderal Perikanan Teangap, DG Capture Fisheries, Capture Fisheries Statistics of Indonesia, 2007 Erdmann, M.V., Huffard, C. and Gunawan, T. (2009). Defining Geographic Priorities for Marine Biodiversity Conservation in Indonesia FAO (2010). Fisheries and Aquaculture fisheries profile, Indonesia ( FAO (2000). Information on fisheries management in the Republic of Indonesia Fishbase (2010). Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta. Hariati, T. and Sadhotomo, B (2005). The activities of purse seiner of Sibolga during years 2002 until 2005, and the catch rate of both pukat rapat and pukat jarang during the period January-July 2005 (after Tsunami disaster). Hutomo, M., Nontji, A. And Dirhamsyah Regional Coastal Resources and Environment Profile for ASEAN Region. Institute for Science of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Lack M., and Meere F. (2009). Regional Plan of Action for Sharks: Guidance for Pacific Island Countries and Territories on the Conservation and Management of Sharks, Shellack Pty Ltd, Commissioned by FFA Lymer D., Funge-Smith S., and Greboval D. (2009). The fishing fleet in Aceh Province, Indonesia. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2009/09, 39 pp. Kirby, D (2006). Ecological Risk Assessment for Species Caught in WCPO Tuna Fisheries: Inherent Risk as Determined by Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. WCPFC SC2 2006/EB WP 1. Scientific Committee Second Regular Session August 2006, Manila, Philippines. Panglima Laot (2008). Suharsono (2008). Managing Indonesian Coral Reefs: Lessons from Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program. Proceedings if the 11th International Coral Reed Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July 2008 Session number 23 Page 32

238 Suharsono (2007). National Report on Coral Reefs in the coastal waters of the South China Sea: Indonesia. Suwarso, Ayi Yustiati, N. Pebruwanti (2010) BOBLME Fisheries Assessment Working Group. Presentation at Bangkok, September Wagey, T. and Arifin, Z. (2008) Marine Biodiversity Review of the Arafura and Timor Sea. Published by Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries, Indonesia Institute of Sciences. Zainudin, I. M., Pet-Soede, L., Hitipeuw, C. and Adnyana, I. B. W. (2007). Interaction of Sea Turtles with Indonesian fisheries preliminary findings. WWF-Indonesia Page 33

239 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix F: Country Report Malaysia

240 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Country Report: Malaysia Undertaken by 711-REG

241 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION PEOPLE MET DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL STOCK STATUS Purse seine, Trawl fishery and Gillnets Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Purse seine Trawl fishery Gillnet Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL Appendices APPENDIX A: REFERENCES APPENDIX B: NUMBER OF VESSELS BY FISHERY Figures FIGURE 1 MALAYSIAN STATES WITHIN THE BOBLME AREA... 1 FIGURE 2: TREND IN LICENSED VESSELS ON THE WEST COAST OF MALAYSIA... 4 FIGURE 3: LANDING TREND OF R. BRACHYSOMA AND R. KANAGURTA IN WEST COAST FIGURE 4 CATCH PROFILE OF MALAYSIAN PURSE SEINE FLEET... 5 Tables TABLE 1: MAIN VESSELS, GEARS AND TARGET SPECIES FOR MALAYSIAN FLEET, TABLE 2 LANDINGS OF R.BRACHYSOMA AND R. KANAGURTA BY REGION & MAIN GEARS (TONNES), TABLE 3: CORAL COVER IN KEDAH STATE... 7 TABLE 4: TURTLE LANDINGS FROM PER MALAYSIAN STATE THAT BORDERS BAY OF BENGAL... 8 TABLE 5: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR INDIAN MACKEREL... 9 TABLE 6: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR OTHER RETAINED SPECIES TABLE 7 POPULATION PARAMETERS OF R. KANAGURTA IN MALAYSIA TABLE 8: LENGTH AT FIRST MATURITY FOR R. KANAGURTA BY MALAYSIAN SUB-REGION TABLE 9: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR INDIAN MACKEREL IN MALAYSIA TABLE 10: NO. OF FISHING VESSELS LICENSED & ESTIMATED TO BE OPERATING ON THE W. COAST TABLE 11: MORE RECENT TREND IN LICENSED VESSEL NUMBERS... 29

242 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Acronyms APFIC ASEAN BOBLME CBFM CCRF COFI CPUE DoFM EAF(M) EU F FAD FAO GEF GT IOTC IUU KG m MCS MEY mm MPA MSY mt NGO nm PSA RB RBF RBFM RFB RFMO RK SEAFDEC TAC TED TURF UNDP Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission Association of Southeast Asian Nations Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Community Based Fisheries Management Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Committee on Fisheries Catch per Unit of Effort Department of Fisheries Malaysia Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (Management) European Union Fishing Mortality Fish aggregating device Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Global Environment Facility Gross tonnage Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing) Kilogrammes Metres Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Maximum Economic Yield Millimetres Marine Protected Area Maximum Sustainable Yield Metric Tons Non Governmental Organisation Nautical Miles Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Rastrelliger brachysoma Risk-Based Framework Rights Based Fisheries Management Regional Fisheries Body Regional Fisheries Management Organization Rastrelliger kanagurta The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center Total Allowable Catch Turtle Exclusion Device Territorial use rights in fisheries United Nations Development Programme

243 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION The West Coast of Malaysia is part of the BOBLME region; from Perlis in the north bordering Thailand, to Selangor in the south of the Malacca Straits (Figure 1). Figure 1 Malaysian States within the BOBLME area Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger spp.) is one of the most important fisheries in Malaysia with 140,000 tonnes landed in This was mainly of Rastrelliger brachysoma, but landings of Rastrelliger kanagurta are also highly significant. No information provided indicates the presence of a current hilsa shad fishery. Anecdotal information suggests hilsa used to be part of some river fisheries, but has been fished out. This report therefore does not contain an assessment of hilsa shad. It is, however, worth briefly noting some aspects of Malaysian fisheries management as these may provide useful lessons for management of hilsa elsewhere in the BOBLME region. Some communities operate a community-based management system. For example in Sabah there is a 100 year old system used by the Tagal communities to manage Malaysian freshwater fisheries 1. Each community along the river uses a red, yellow and green zoning system that protects spawning areas. The red zone is not for harvesting but for conservation, game fishing (catch and release) and fish massage (swimming with the fish) to attract tourists; in the yellow zone fishing is permitted for a limited period once or twice a 1 More details on the Tagal system can be found within Tietze et al (2007). Page 1

244 year; and the green zone is where fishing is permitted all year. Visitors pay for fishing rights and the earnings fund the river management. Regulation is by the community with locally determined fines for infringements. 1.2 PEOPLE MET Name Title and Organisation Contact details Ahmad Adnan Nuruddin Hjh. Mahyam Mohd. Isa Hj. Suhaili Bin Hj. Lee Mrs. Tan Geik Hong Mr. Adrian F. Vijiarungam Mr. Gulam Sawar bin Jan Mohammad Mr. Ahmad Saktian bin Langgang Director, Capture Fisheries Division, Fisheries Research Institute Chief, Marine Fishery Resources Development and Management Department, SEAFDEC Deputy Director General (Operations) Department of Fisheries. Malaysia (DoFM) Head of Fisheries Data Collection Department of Fisheries. Malaysia (DoFM) Head of International Relations Department of Fisheries. Malaysia (DoFM) Head of Licencing Department of Fisheries. Malaysia (DoFM) Head of Resource Management, Department of Fisheries. Malaysia (DoFM) FRI KAmpung Aceh, 3200 Sitiawan, Perak Malaysia Taman Perikanan Chendering, 2180 Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry, Level 6 Wisma Tani, Tower 4G2, Precinct 4, 62628, Putrajaya, Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry, Level 3 Wisma Tani, Tower 4G2, Precinct 4, 62628, Putrajaya, Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry, Level 2 Wisma Tani, Tower 4G2, Precinct 4, 62628, Putrajaya, Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry, Level 1 Wisma Tani, Tower 4G2, Precinct 4, 62628, Putrajaya, Malaysia Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry, Level 1 Wisma Tani, Tower 4G2, Precinct 4, 62628, Putrajaya, Malaysia Location of meeting Penang Penang Putrajaya Putrajaya Putrajaya Putrajaya Putrajaya Page 2

245 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS Malaysia s fishing fleet numbers approximately 40,959 vessels (Table 1), representing a 20% increase since 2000 (Department of Fisheries, Malaysia (DoFM)), the bulk of this increase coming from boats with outboard engines. Around 17,990 of all vessels are located on the west coast with 2,976 trawlers (16.5%), 326 purse seiners (1.8%) and 12,520 gill/drift nets (69.6%). Table 1: Main vessels, gears and target species for Malaysian fleet, 2008 Gear Main species No. of Vessels Sector Purse seine Indian mackerel, scad and 1,133 Territorial/EEZ (B and C) other and tunas Drift / gill net Mackerels, bream and 24,160 Coastal (Zone A and B) tuna Trawl Shrimp, squid and bream 6,090 Territorial (Zone B) Hook and Bream and other finfish 4,478 Coastal (Zone A) line Traps Finfish and crabs 1,473 Coastal (Zone A) Others Others 3,625 Others (Zone A) Source: DoFM The main approach to managing and regulating Malaysia s fisheries is the establishment of fishing zones and licensing of gears and vessels. The DoFM employs a management zone system to provide for equitable allocation of resources and reduce conflict between fishing groups. The marine waters are divided into 4 zones; A, B, C and C2. The first 5 nautical miles from the shore is an exclusive fishing zone for fishermen using traditional fishing gears, known as Zone A. These vessels are only allowed to use non-destructive fishing methods within this zone. There are approximately 12,520 boats fishing in this zone on the West coast of Malaysia. Figure 2 shows the recent trends in vessel numbers on the West Coast of Peninsula Malaysia. A longer-run time series, along with estimates of unlicensed vessels operating is presented in Annex 2. The large increase in numbers seen in the last 5 years has occurred in the gill/drift net fisheries, which may in part be a consequence of efforts to reduce capacity in the trawl fishery. There was also a 34% increase in numbers of purse seine vessels between 2001 and 2008 reaching a total of 326. Page 3

246 Figure 2: Trend in licensed vessels on the West coast of Malaysia Source: DoFM The licensing system in Malaysia is for vessels and gears. The licenses for vessels include details of name of owner and number of crews onboard, vessel tonnage, engine- power, allowed gears. The corresponding license for gears detail the type of gear and allowed fishing zone (Hiew 2008). The licenses stipulate that any intended changes to the details in the licenses must be notified to the DoFM. The DoFM is required to perform annual checks to ensure that the licenses are still valid. This system enables DoFM to keep a record of seagoing vessels and corresponding gears and to prevent fishermen from changing the configuration of their vessels without prior approval from DoFM. As part of the licensing system, DoFM prevents illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing through colourcoding and registration number for vessels. A coloured stripe on the hull establishes what region a vessel is licenced to fish in and it cannot fish in other regions without permission from DoFM. 1.4 CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE The most important commercial species harvested, by value are Indian mackerel, shrimp, threadfin bream, tuna and squid. The pelagic Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger spp.) has always been the most dominant group, with West Coast landings of 139,601 tonnes (mainly of Rastrelliger brachysoma [RB]) in The West Coast (within the BOBLME region) accounted for 42% of Rastrelliger kanagurta (RK) landings in 2008, which amounted to 20,540 t, about one sixth (17%) of total RB landings, but RK commands a higher price than RB. The trends in west coast landings for the two species are presented in Figure 3. Table 2 presents the landings of RK by gear type and region in Landings of RK come mostly from the purse seiners (56% of west coast landings), trawlers (42%) and only a very Page 4

247 small amount (1%) from drift/gill netters. This is due to RK being a more offshore resource than RB, where nearly half of total landings come from inshore netters. Figure 3: Landing trend of R. brachysoma and R. kanagurta in West Coast Source: DoFM Table 2 Landings of R.brachysoma and R. kanagurta by region & main gears (tonnes), 2008 Gear West Coast East Coast Sarawak Sabah Labuan Species RB RK RB RK RB RK RB RK RB RK Trawl nets 19,678 8, , , Purse seines 48,394 11, , , Gill/Drift nets 50, ,114 6, Others (Hook , Lines, Traps) Total 119,060 20,540 2,311 15, ,099-9, Source: DoFM The catch profile in the purse seine fishery is presented in Figure 4. Figure 4 Catch profile of Malaysian purse seine fleet Source: DoFM Page 5

248 Other purse seine and gill net catches include scad (80,000 t) and tunas and tuna-like species (50,000 t) (Thunnus spp., Euthynnus affinis, Auxis thazard, Katsuwonus pelamis). There is also a small purse seine anchovy fishery, catching around 20,000 t per annum (Stolephorus spp.). Ox-eye scad (Selar boops), hard tail scad (Megalaspis cordyla), lizard fish (Saurida spp./trachinocephalus spp.) and jewfish (Pennahia spp./johnius spp.) are other important fish groups with landings over 20,000 tonnes. Trawl fisheries provide the most significant economic contribution with shrimps (70,000t), threadfin bream (38,000t) and squid (60,000t), making up the most significant quantities caught by this sector. Trash fish makes up some 40% of the landings volume from trawlers. Threadfin bream and other finfish are also caught by trap, as well as by hook and line. Most of the fishing operation for R. brachysoma and R. kanagurta are in the fishing zone B (5-12 n.m) and C (12-30 n.m). According to Hadil and Richard (1991), R. kanagurta are more abundant offshore. Most R. kanagurata is caught offshore in zone C, while R. brachysoma is found inshore. Only a very small tonnage of RK is captured by the inshore gillnet fishery. The increasing use of lights in the purse seine fishery on both the mother vessel and skiffs means that several species are attracted and often captured together. They are then sorted as RK commands a higher market price to RB. A significant proportion of RK is also caught by trawls. Another gear that is thought to capture juvenile RK is the anchovy purse seine fleet that is permitted to fish in zone A. All of these methods capture several species and may not target RK specifically. Zones B and C are within the coastal waters of 30 nm, while zone C2 is for deep-sea fishing. Vessels from the closer zones are permitted to fish in the further zones but not the other way around. Any vessels found encroaching into a closer zone are liable to be fined. The only exception in Zone A is the allowance for 130 commercial anchovy purse-seiners to operate, due to the presence of those particular resources in the area. Inshore fisheries (A & B zones) account for 1,078,752 tonnes, (US$ 1.622m), and deep-sea fisheries (C and C 2) for 315,779 tonnes, (US$ 0.408m). The DoFM also established a Fisheries Prohibited Area (FPA) to protect coastal resources such as in Pulau Talang-talang and Pulau Satang, Sarawak and Tanjung Tuan and Pulau Besar, Malacca. The protected area differs between 1 to 3 nm according to sites. Fishermen in the region of Pulau Langkawi are proposing a closed area to protect spawning small pelagic including RK. Spawning of R. kanagurta is believed to be in February and March. It is believed that the stock of RK straddles between Thailand and Malaysian waters with both fleets targeting the stock. The 2006 genetic research established that there were groups of R. kanagurta that were significantly differentiated in terms of morphology suggesting there is limited mixing north to south along the west coast of Malaysia. Fishermen in the state adjacent to Pulau Langkawi believe that it is an important spawning and nursery area that should be protected. Page 6

249 1.5 ENVIRONMENT Protected areas have long been established in Malaysia (beginning with the Chior Wildlife Reserve in 1903) and since then, the number of protected areas has grown with some established and managed by the Federal government, while others are administered by the individual states (NRE, 2008). A network of Marine Parks is now well established and based around the nation s 42 islands extending 2 nautical miles from low water, and is overseen by the Department of Marine Parks within the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. Knowledge of coral cover is good for a number of these areas with Park status (see Table 3, but less comprehensive information (and protection) is evident elsewhere. Table 3: Coral cover in Kedah state Location % coral cover in coastal waters Pulau Kaca 24.0 Pulau Lembu 14.0 Pulau Payar 34.5 Pulau Segantang 8.0 Source, Department of Marine Park Malaysia Coral reef types in Malaysia are mostly shallow fringing reefs adjacent to the offshore islands (Zakariah et al. 2007). The rest are small patch reefs, atolls and barrier reefs. Over 85% of the coral reefs in Malaysia are considered to be threatened (Burke et al 2002). On the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia sedimentation is considered to be the most significant threat to corals, followed by fishing intensity, fishing damage and population pressure / coastal development; while coral mining, tourist activities and coral bleaching are of least threat to the coral reefs in this area (Husomo et al, 2009). A Marine Parks project is currently being undertaken by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) together with the Government of Malaysia. The goal is to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in Malaysia and sustainable island development. Focusing on the East coast peninsula of Malaysia but with a number of national strategic actions, the Department of Marine Park Malaysia (DMPM) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) is responsible for implementing the project between Four species of turtles are recorded in Malaysian waters: green turtle Chelonia mydas, hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate, leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea and olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea. Table 4 presents the number of turtle landings recorded from 1991 to 2006 in Malaysian State that border the Bay of Bengal area. Landings do not appear to have declined especially for hawksbill and green turtles which make up the majority of landings (61 % and 37% respectively). Chan (2007) reports that despite 40 years of concerted conservation efforts, most turtle populations have not yet recovered. The survival of marine turtles in Malaysia is threatened by habitat destruction (pollution and negative changes to their habitats), accidental drowning in fishing gear in terrestrial waters and high seas and illegal harvesting for their carapace and meat usually by foreign fishing vessels (WWF, 2009). Page 7

250 Under the Malaysian Constitution, turtles fall under the jurisdiction of the 13 individual states (Zulkifli Talib et. Al, 2004). In Peninsular Malaysia, Perlis and Selangor do not have marine turtle related legislation. To decrease the rate of decline the Malaysian Government has intensified efforts to protect nesting beaches by declaring them as turtle sanctuaries, regulated (and in some areas prohibited) the collection and sale of turtle eggs and adopted a regional cooperation strategy. The Malaysian National Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sea Turtles was developed in 2008 to strengthen conservation measures and management of sea turtles. Key priorities include a national ban on consumption and commercial sale of turtle eggs and other products, and enhancing public awareness and facilitate participation of local communities in conservation programmes (WWF, 2009). However, illegal collection of turtle eggs and incidental and illegal capture by fishing boats remain issues of concern, especially where enforcement and surveillance are weak. Table 4: Turtle Landings from per Malaysian State that borders Bay of Bengal Turtle State TOTAL Hawksbill Melaka Johor Melaka Johor Green Perak Penang Kedah Johor Olive Riley Kedah Penang Leatherback Johor TOTAL Source: CREP, 2009 Dugongs occur in the coastal waters of Malaysia, in particular in areas with large tract seagrass, mangrove and coral reef (Tan et al, 2007). Sightings are reported in the Johor Marine Parks and there is strong evidence that dugongs are resident in the Johor-Singapore region (Marsh, 2002). The threats to dugongs include the loss of seagrass habitats (which are currently not protected), consumption by local communities, incidental catch by fisheries and death or injury by boat propellers. Little is known about the occurrence and status of whales and dolphins in the coastal waters of Malaysia, primarily due to a lack of interest to conduct scientific research on these marine mammals (Jaaman, 2007, 2008, 2009). All cetaceans are protected by laws in Malaysia. However, small cetaceans continue to be threatened by incidental capture in fisheries, declining fisheries resources, habitat loss and degradation, pollution, heavy vessel traffic and coastal industrial development. Other protected species include the sawfish (though now mostly extinct in Malaysian waters), the humphead wrasse and sea cucumbers. Page 8

251 1.6 RISK ASSESSMENT A first step in a Risk Based Framework for assessing data-poor fisheries is to determine the scale and intensity of the fishery. This is then used with the Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) in order to determine the overall risk to the stock. More detail on the PSA for Indian mackerel is provided in the main report. A summary of the PSA for Indian mackerel is provided in Table 5. Table 5: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for Indian Mackerel Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Species Gear Purse seine High <60 Btm Indian Otter Mackerel trawl High <60 Gill nets Low >80 Source: Poseidon Based on the PSA assessment Indian mackerel is shown to be highly productive with a minimum population doubling time less than 15 months (Fishbase, 2010). Indian mackerel is highly susceptible to being caught by the purse seine and trawl fleets. Vessels deploying these gears are likely to overlap > 30% of the natural distribution of Indian mackerel, as well as having a high overlap with the habitat and depth range inhabited by this species. Due to the mesh sizes of these gears, they have a low selectivity in that most fish encountered will be captured. From a stock status perspective both purse seine and trawl fisheries are considered to be high risk to Indian mackerel. The gillnet fishery however, is predominately carried out in the coastal areas and so has a lower risk score based on availability and encounterability attributes. While selectivity scores poorly due to the small mesh sizes compared to the fish length, overall the impact of this small scale fishery on the stock is considered low risk. A PSA has also been undertaken for other species that are likely to be captured in conjunction with the small pelagic fishery, including Indo Pacific mackerel and tuna species. These results are presented in Table 6. Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Page 9

252 Table 6: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for other retained species Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Species Gear Purse seine Med Indopacific Btm Otter mackerel trawl Med Gill nets Low >80 Skipjack Purse tuna seine Med Longtail Purse tuna seine High <60 Frigate Purse tuna seine High <60 Bigeye Purse tuna seine Med Bullet tuna Purse seine High <60 Eastern Purse little tuna seine High <60 Yellowfin Purse tuna seine High <60 Source: Poseidon Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score The above assessment is used for data deficient fisheries. However, a number of parameters for Malaysian Populations of R. kanagurta have been calculated. These are presented in Table 7, and show that the West Coast areas suggest a higher exploitation level compared to the east coast, however growth and length are higher (as is length at first maturity shown in Table 8). These indicate that West Coast populations may be deemed to be in a more robust state compared to East Coast stocks in some aspects, but this may not continue with the comparatively higher exploitation ratios. Page 10

253 Table 7 Population parameters of R. kanagurta in Malaysia Area Parameters K L Z M F E Growth Maximum length Total mortality Natural mortality Fishing mortality Exploitation ratio (f/z) Perlis (WC) Penang (WC) Tok Bali (EC) Kuantan (EC) Kuching Kota Kinabalu Kudat Kunak Source: DoFM Spawning seasons differ between sea areas. SEAFDEC research surveys in 2007 identified that the spawning season of R. kanagurta in the northern part of West Coast Peninsular of Malaysia occurred in March to April. The spawning season of R. kanagurta occurred twice a year in the South China Sea area. In the northern part of East Coast Peninsular of Malaysia, the spawning season occurred in March to May, and October to November, while in the southern part spawning occurred from April to August. In Sarawak, spawning occurred from January to April, and November to December. Table 8: Length at first maturity for R. kanagurta by Malaysian sub-region Species / sub-area Total length at first maturity (mm) Female Male Penang (West Coast) 206 Tok Bali (East Coast) Kuantan (East Coast) Kuching, Sarawak Source: DoFM Page 11

254 2 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL For the purpose of this assessment, the main units of assessment are defined as follows: 1. Purse seine vessels with 1 inch (25mm) mesh size targeting small pelagic with Indian mackerel as one of these target species and those targeting tunas that catch Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. 2. Bottom otter trawl fishery with 1 inch (25mm) mesh size targeting shrimp and demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. 3. Set gillnet fishery with mesh sizes ranging from 1 inch (25mm) upwards targeting demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a bycatch species. 2.1 STOCK STATUS Purse seine, Trawl fishery and Gillnets PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Target spp status Reference points Stock rebuilding DoFM statistics, 2008 Hassan et al, 2006 in Ahmed, 2009 Researchers believe CPUE is increasing and the status of the Indian Mackerel resource is therefore deemed to be good and not a priority for management. However, population parameters derived from a scientific survey conducted in 2006 showed high exploitation levels for West Coast stocks. The survey also estimated that the west coast peninsula of Malaysia, an area totaling nearly 28,000km 2, supported a pelagic resource of 210,000t (Hassan et al, 2006). This estimate is 23.8% lower than that estimated in the previous survey conducted in When compared to biomass estimates, landings of Rastrelliger sp. represent two thirds of the most recent estimate of total biomass. Although these species are highly fecund, the stock may be being overfished and a more recent assessment is required. DoFM questionnaire response Several RK population parameters are presented, but no reference points are set. A total pelagic biomass was estimated at 210,000t, suggesting west coast landings (140,000 t) of RK & mainly RB would give a high F value. No stock rebuilding strategy FRI, DoFM interview Harvest strategy Page 12

255 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring Stock Assessment Fisheries master plan. Master plan gives objective as: To meet fish production target of 1.83 million tones a year through the increment of deep sea fisheries to 380,000 tonnes, aquaculture to 508,000 tonnes, and maintaining coastal fisheries production to 938,000 tonnes There is no harvest strategy for the RK and RB fishery, only an input control with some attempt to reduce capacity in zone B through an exit strategy for trawlers. There are no harvest control rules in place DoFM Good levels of reporting and fisheries-dependent information have been developed, but these are yet to directly feed into a harvest strategy. There are only sporadic (5 years +) resource surveys, and not on a regular basis. Several RK population parameters are presented based on a single 2006 survey and no reference points are set. Therefore while information is available, adequate regular stock assessment is not possible Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Information is primarily based on ad hoc research on pelagic resources rather than on regular assessment that can present trends in resource and consider these in relation to exploitation levels. There are no reference points or harvest control rules (e.g. output limits based on stock status) Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses Survey of pelagic resources including determination of biomass and identification of key spawning and nursery areas for the stock; Genetic research into Indian mackerel to explore stock and sub-stock relationships; and Identification of a catch profile of anchovy purse seiners to see if this includes juvenile Indian mackerel. Page 13

256 2.2 ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Purse seine PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other retained species Retained spp Status Retained spp management Retained spp Information Discards Discarded spp Status Discarded spp Management Discarded spp Information DoFM, IOTC. The main retained species are known, as RK is primarily captured offshore, the interaction with coastal fisheries including demersal fisheries is less than for example RB. Tuna may be captured when targeting shoals of small pelagic (making up 7% of seine catch). These are managed by the IOTC of which Malaysia is a signatory, and measures are in place. Overall therefore it is expected that the RK purse seine fishery is not hindering recovery of main retained species. See Table 6 for assessment of retained species. Fisheries statistics, 2008 (DoFM) Main retained species are small pelagic, which are not estimated by DoFM but deemed not to require additional measures. There is some limited management of retained species e.g. IOTC management of tuna. Fisheries statistics, 2008 (DoFM) There is a detailed profile of the amount of retained species collected regularly for annual statistics. This is presented by gear type and therefore a full catch profile for each gear can be established. No reported discarding of by-catch. All landed as trash fish. Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimisation management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would thus benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. Page 14

257 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP species ETP spp Status ETP spp Management ETP spp Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) DoFM pers com Need more research on status of ETP species (turtle, dugong, marine mammals, sawfish, etc.) in Malaysian waters as current information on status is anecdotal. However indications are that species such as sawfish are close to extinct in Malaysian waters and turtle populations are still heavily depleted. DoFM pers comm Regulation for protection of ETP species (turtle, dugong, marine mammals, sawfish, etc.) are in place and said to be applied. These include not permitting drift net >10 inches, and introduction of circle hooks in longline fishery to reduce turtle bycatch. However compliance and enforcement levels are unknown. Interactions with ETP species in the fishery are reported to be low and therefore no measures specific to the purse seine fishery are utilised. But evidence of this low level interaction are not available. Leatherback eggs are banned from sale and consumption in Terengganu, but there is evidence of collection continuing in this area (WWF, 2009). Eggs of other species are not banned in Peninsular Malaysia. Instead, egg collection is regulated by licensing systems. In contrast, sale and consumption of eggs of all marine turtle species are banned in Sabah and Sarawak (WWF, 2009). WWF Malaysia DoFM There has been some significant research work, but often associated with marine parks. Ad hoc work has been completed by WWF e.g. on turtles. Several awareness-raising initiatives (posters, outreach) by DoFM but this is to inform the general population rather than monitor ETP status. There is no regular monitoring and collection of information on ETP interactions. UNEP/SCS National Report - Malaysia WWF Malaysia Extent and status of key habitats such as mangrove (109,000ha on west coast peninsula with 84,000ha recorded as mangrove reserve) and coral reefs is generally well known. Impact of purse seining on these critical habitats is expected to be minimal. ( Habitat UNEP/SCS National Report Page 15

258 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Management Habitat Information Malaysia DoFM pers com Key habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs are managed as reserves and marine parks respectively. The purse seine fishery is not thought to significantly impact on these key habitats. UNEP/SCS National Report Malaysia Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information The extent and the vulnerability of the habitats and the extent of the fishery is known, and interaction with critical habitats minimal, and therefore the risk of impact is thought to be low for the purse seine fishery. The resource is dispersed across the Malaysian EEZ and associated with deeper waters of zones B & C. The fishery catches a wide range of species including high rates of juveniles, which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is not ecosystem modelling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. Certain resources are depleted, but the key elements to ecosystem structure are probably intact and the fishery in its current form is unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm. There are licensing and management measures to reduce the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem. But the small mesh size (25mm despite regulations requiring 38mm) used means that a number of trophic levels are captured. This is further influenced by the increasing use of lights to aggregate fish, which results in a more heterogenous catch than through use of sonar alone. West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia: Acoustic, Fishery Oceanography and Bottom Substrate Surveys. Ahmad et al, eds, 2009 The ecosystem has been studied over many years at a variety of levels and using a variety of techniques. However significant gaps remain to establish the scale and extent of connections of Malaysian resources to the BOBLME, and of the impacts of the purse seine fishery on ecosystems. Page 16

259 2.2.2 Trawl fishery PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained species Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Discards Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Retained spp Status Retained spp manageme nt Retained spp Information Discarded spp Status Discarded spp Manageme nt Discarded spp Information DoFM, IOTC. The main retained species are known but their status is not. See Table 6 for risk assessment of other retained species. As RK is primarily captured offshore, the interaction with coastal fisheries including demersal fisheries is less than for example in the RB fishery. However status of many offshore resources is thought to be depleted. Fisheries statistics, 2008 (DoFM) Trawlers catch a wide range of fish and crustacean species as well as a high proportion of trashfish. There is no effective management of the bottom otter trawl fishery to reduce retained bycatch. The minimum mesh size of 1 inch is not appropriate to control the volume or size of fish landed and juveniles are expected to be landed in high proportions to enter the fish supplement and fish oil trade. The effect on recruitment for these small pelagic species due to high juvenile catch rates is unknown. There are no other controls over the size of fish landed or the volumes landed. Fisheries statistics, 2008 (DoFM) There are detailed data on the amount of retained species collected regularly for annual statistics. No reported discarding of by-catch. All landed as trash fish. Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimisation management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. Page 17

260 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Explanatory Statement ETP species ETP Status Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Habitats Explanatory Statement spp ETP spp Manageme nt ETP spp Information Habitat Status (SICA only) Habitat Manageme nt No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature has been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would thus benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. DoFM pers com WWF, 2009 Need more research on status of ETP species (turtle, dugong, marine mammals, sawfish, etc.) in Malaysian waters as current information on status is anecdotal. However indications are that species such as sawfish are close to extinct in Malaysian waters and turtle populations are still heavily depleted. DoFM pers comm Regulation for protection of ETP species (turtle, dugong, marine mammals, sawfish, etc.) are in place and said to be applied. These include not permitting drift net >10 inches and introduction of circle hooks in longline fishery. However compliance and enforcement levels are unknown. The scale and extent of interactions with ETP species in the fishery are unknown. No reported use of TEDs in the trawl fishery. Leatherback eggs are banned from sale and consumption in Terengganu, but there is evidence of collection continuing in this area (WWF, 2009). Eggs of other species are not banned in Peninsular Malaysia. Instead, egg collection is regulated by licensing systems. In contrast, sale and consumption of eggs of all marine turtle species are banned in Sabah and Sarawak (WWF, 2009). WWF Malaysia DoFM There has been some significant research work, but often associated with marine parks. Ad hoc work has been completed by WWF e.g. on turtles. Several awareness-raising initiatives (posters, outreach) by DoFM but this is to inform the general population rather than monitor ETP status. There is no regular monitoring and collection of information on ETP interactions. UNEP/SCS National Report - Malaysia WWF Malaysia Extent of interaction with vulnerable habitats is a significant issue in the trawl fishery with damage to seagrass and coral areas evident. UNEP/SCS National Report Malaysia FRI pers comm DoFM pers comm Page 18

261 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Ecosystems Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Habitat Information Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Manageme nt Ecosystem Information Key habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs are managed as reserves and marine parks respectively. The zoned licencing prevents trawling within 5nm of the shore, but there is encroachment by trawlers into this zone (FRI, pers comm.). The trawl fishery has the potential to damage key habitats such as seagrass and coral reefs. Marine parks with no take zones have been introduced in certain areas. Artificial reefs have been used in places to demarcate protected areas and to deter trawling. However these are only in certain select areas rather than providing widespread protection of these habitats. Although there is no information on compliance levels, this additional protection combined with the zonal management and reduction in capacity should reduce negative impacts. UNEP/SCS National Report Malaysia /coral.htm Extent and status of key habitats such as mangrove (109,000ha on west coast peninsula with 84,000ha recorded as mangrove reserve) and coral reefs is generally well known. Regular survey of coral status within marine parks is undertaken. The resource is dispersed across the Malaysian EEZ and associated with deeper waters of zones B & C. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is not ecosystem modelling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. As the trawl fishery removes both juvenile fish and crustaceans in an untargeted way, there is the potential to cause serious damage the ecosystem. DoFM pers comm There are licensing and management measures to reduce the impact of the fishery on the ecosystem, but there does not appear to be ecosystem-based fisheries management and the small mesh size (25mm despite regulations requiring 38mm) used means that a number of trophic levels are captured. Ahmad et al, eds, 2009 The ecosystem has been studied over many years at a variety of levels and using a variety of techniques. However significant gaps remain to establish the scale and extent of connections of Malaysian resources to the BOBLME, and of the impacts of the purse seine fishery on ecosystems Gillnet PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Page 19

262 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other Retained species Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Discards Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement ETP species Retained spp Status Retained spp manageme nt Retained spp Information Discarded spp Status Discarded spp Manageme nt Discarded spp Information ETP Status spp DoFM, IOTC. The main retained species are known (mainly demersal), but status is either not assessed or known to be depleted. A small proportion of RASTRELLIGER KANAGURTA (1% of total landings) is captured by the traditional inshore fishery using gillnet. Fisheries statistics, 2008 (DoFM) Limited management of gill net fisheries and no evidence of actions on improving selectivity. Fisheries statistics, 2008 (DoFM) There are detailed data on the amount of retained species by gear type that are collected regularly for annual statistics. No reported discarding of by-catch. All landed as trash fish. Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimisation management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature has been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would thus benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. DoFM pers com WWF, 2009 Page 20

263 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Habitats ETP spp Manageme nt ETP spp Information Habitat Status Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Habitat Manageme nt Need more research on status of ETP species (turtle, dugong, marine mammals, sawfish, etc.) in Malaysian waters as current information on status is anecdotal. However indications are that species such as sawfish are close to extinct in Malaysian waters and turtle populations are still heavily depleted. Gillnet interactions with these and other ETP species are a significant threat. DoFM pers comm Regulation for protection of ETP species (turtle, dugong, marine mammals, sawfish, etc.) are in place and said to be applied. These include not permitting drift net >10 inches and introduction of circle hooks in longline fishery. However compliance and enforcement levels are unknown. Interactions with ETP species in the fishery are not known as is the extent to which measures are complied with and enforced. Leatherback eggs are banned from sale and consumption in Terengganu, but there is evidence of collection continuing in this area (WWF, 2009). Eggs of other species are not banned in Peninsular Malaysia. Instead, egg collection is regulated by licensing systems. In contrast, sale and consumption of eggs of all marine turtle species are banned in Sabah and Sarawak (WWF, 2009). WWF Malaysia DoFM There has been some significant research work, but often associated with marine parks. Ad hoc work has been completed by WWF e.g. on turtles. Several awarenessraising initiatives (posters, outreach) by DoFM but this is to inform the general population rather than monitor ETP status. There is no regular monitoring and collection of information on ETP interactions. UNEP/SCS National Report - Malaysia WWF Malaysia: ( l.htm) Extent of key habitats such as mangrove (109,000ha on west coast peninsula with 84,000ha recorded as mangrove reserve ) and coral reefs is known. Habitat impacts as a result of the gear are considered minimal. The interaction of bottom set gill nets is limited to the weights and bottom line touching the seabed. However, lost nets do have the potential to impact coral reefs. UNEP/SCS National Report Malaysia DoFM pers com Key habitats such as mangroves and coral reefs are managed as reserves and marine parks respectively. However the management of interaction between the gillnet fishery and habitats is limited as the inshore fishery is not limited by spatial management measures. Page 21

264 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Habitat Information UNEP/SCS National Report Malaysia Explanatory Statement Ecosystems Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Explanatory Statement Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Manageme nt Ecosystem Information The extent and the vulnerability of the habitats and the extent of the fishery is known, interaction and the risk of impact is thought to be moderate for the gillnet fishery. The resource is dispersed across the Malaysian EEZ and associated with deeper waters of zones B & C. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is not ecosystem modelling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. As the gillnet fishery removes juvenile fish in an untargeted way, there is the potential to cause damage the ecosystem. The small-scale nature of the fishery may mean limited impact to the wider ecosystem, but could have localised effects. DoFM pers com There are licensing and management/regulatory measures, but these do not limit capacity in the inshore gillnet fishery. The small mesh size (25mm despite regulations requiring 38mm) used means that a number of trophic levels are captured. Ahmad et al, 2009 The ecosystem has been studied over many years at a variety of levels and using a variety of techniques. However significant gaps remain to establish the scale and extent of connections of Malaysian resources to the BOBLME Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Regulations have been developed to reduce fisheries impacts on species and habitats, but these are yet to be fully applied or enforced. In the case of increased mesh size this is due to political objections citing economic and social consequences of moving to 38mm. In the case of ETP species, the introduction of technical measures such as TEDs and JTEDs has not yet occurred, citing practicalities of managing grids with net drums. These have however been overcome in other countries. Instead education and awareness-raising is favoured, but the impact of these efforts is not known. Finally the level of fisheries information (retained species) is very good compared to the information on fisheries/etp interactions with a reliance on anecdotal information. Page 22

265 2.2.5 Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses Key recommendations are: Complete a regulatory impact assessment of mesh size increases, and investigation of a phased approach and introduction in certain key fisheries; Explore the location and scale of seasonal and permanent marine protected areas for fisheries improvement & refugia (spawning & nursery areas) as well as habitat protection; and Develop strategy to roll-out technical measures reducing environmental impact of gear. The above should ideally be based on multilateral and at a minimum bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries. Page 23

266 2.3 FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Governance and policy Legal Framework SEAFDEC, 1999 Fisheries Act, 1985, amended 1993 The current Act is the Fisheries Act 1985, and the regulations made under the Act provide the legal framework for the management of fishery resources and aquaculture. Malaysia has an appropriate legal framework to implement fisheries management. This is supported through a strong deterrent mechanism within the laws, as well as a certified ISO 9000 approved, integrated licensing system that is one of the better systems in Asia. The Federal Constitution of Malaysia clearly divides the law-making authority of the Federation into its legislative authority, judicial authority and executive authority. The separation of power also occurs both at federal and state levels. The fisheries system appears to recognize the rights of traditional fishers and there is a sound legal system to consider and resolve disputes in addition to supporting enforcement Consultation DoFM pers comm Long-term Objectives The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are well defined and understood by all relevant parties and there are good levels of consultation. Each district has a fisheries extension officer who meets with fishermen and their representatives on a regular basis. Any issues emerging get reported up to state level and on to national level. Key developments such as the fisheries master plan are put out for consultation ahead of finalisation. DoFM pers comm. Annual report, DoFM, 2008 A new marine management plan is being drafted for roll out in Details of this were unavailable, but it is suggested by DoFM that this will integrate management of environment, fisheries and other marine sectors. At present, the current fisheries master plan does seeks production increases, but recognises that this should be from further development of offshore resources and not an increase in production for the coastal fishery. Objectives: To meet fish production target of 1.83 million tones a year through the increment of deep sea fisheries to 380,000 tonnes, aquaculture to 508,000 tonnes, and maintaining coastal fisheries production to 938,000 tonnes To increase the export value of fish based products to RM 3.3 billion while controlling imports at RM 2.8 billion To achieve a minimum net income per head of RM 3,000 per Page 24

267 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference month for fisheries entrepreneurs To ensure that the income of fishermen exceeds poverty levels Incentives DoFM pers comm. Annual report, DoFM, 2008 For the fishing fleet,, fuel subsidies continue, which are most critical to supporting the trawl fleet, which at the same time are part of the exit strategy to reduce capacity. There are also a number of initiatives to reduce impact on ETP species, but more could be done to incentivise take up of known measures such as TEDS and in implementation of increased mesh size to reduce capture of juveniles and low value species. Fishery specific management Fishery Objectives Decision making processes Compliance & Enforcement DoFM pers comm There are no fishery-specific management objectives for Indian mackerel. The fisheries do not operate on a targeted basis, only fishing in certain zones with certain methods. DoFM pers comm There are no fishery-specific decision-making process for Indian mackerel, largely because there is no fisheries-specific management beyond licensing and zonal management. DoFM pers comm The MCS system in Malaysia is reasonably comprehensive with a hull colour coding system that enables prompt establishment of a vessel s right to fish in a certain area. Enforcement of technical measures is however less advanced. There remains a disconnect between what is regulated and what is applied, e.g. the regulation for 38mm mesh not being enforced. Levels of compliance and suggested to be good, but no evidence provided Research Plan FRI & DoFM pers comm Performance Evaluation The limited resources for research are applied on a priority basis, which in this instance is the demersal fish and shellfish resource, not the pelagic resource. There is a reliance on externally supported ad hoc surveys, including occasional use of the SEAFDEC research vessel. As fisheryspecific management objectives do not exist, research cannot be properly targeted. DoFM, pers comm There is an impressive system of stakeholder extension services to regularly consult with fisheries interests and communities. This is further enhanced by initiatives such as meet the client days. However as the overall management system is underdeveloped in terms of fisheryspecific objectives and associated targets, there is no opportunity to evaluate against performance. Page 25

268 2.3.1 Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Malaysia has an extensive and detailed legislative framework for fisheries management, but certain aspects are not applied in practice. As stocks are shared, there is a reluctance to apply more stringent management measures than neighbouring countries. Consultation levels via the extension officer network are good, but this stops short of localised and community-based fisheries management (CBFM). Decision-making remains highly centralised, resulting in general policies that may not meet the differing circumstances found around the Malaysian coast. There are riverine examples where CBFM is in place, such as Tagal and there is a fishing community programme which now has 87 communities in place. At present projects relate to fishermen s training and technical support, but DoFM state they are looking to move towards CBFM. DoFM s priority is to address excessive effort in fleets targeting demersal stocks. Efforts such as the exit strategy (decommissioning) to remove zone B vessels 2 are being taken to address excess capacity in the trawl fleet targeting demersal stocks. Fisheries-specific policies e.g. for small pelagics are lacking. Small pelagics are not currently viewed as a priority. Demersal fisheries are the current priority and fleet overcapacity is being addressed to an extent. The focus is on capacity reduction through reducing total number of vessels. Other effort management measures such as technical measures (mesh size increases) are not being implemented at present Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses Key recommendations are: Develop and implement a national management plan for small pelagics (i.e. before it becomes a reaction to major problems in the fishery); Design a comprehensive research plan as part of small pelagic management; Introduce evidence-based decision-making, supported by more regular resource assessment for small pelagic; and Explore multi-lateral agreements on implementation of technical measures (mesh size, use of light, placement & use of FADs, etc.); Develop co-operative management plans for shared stocks of small pelagics; Expand successful experiences of community-based fisheries management for coastal fishers. Review Marine Management Plan in the context of fisheries management and specific fishery management plans to ensure compatibility from state of Kadah removed to date. A proportion have moved into zone A, others have invested in zone C vessels or have taken up fish farming. Page 26

269 2.4 SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL The table below provides a summary of the performance for Indian mackerel in Malaysia. In terms of stock, some information including estimated population parameters is given but this is now some years old and more significantly has not informed a harvest strategy. The recording of landings is comprehensive and as no discarding occurs is assumed to effectively relate to total catch. However more extensive investigation of by-catch and ETP interactions is needed. Zonal management in Malaysia is relatively advanced as is the well-established network of marine parks. However there remain shortcomings in the implementation of management measures. Table 9: Summary performance table for Indian Mackerel in Malaysia Malaysia Unit of Assessment Principle 1: Stock status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Outcome Harvest strategy Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific man. Spp Gear Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding if necessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discards status Discards management Discards info / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation I. mackerel I. mackerel I. mackerel Purse seine Btm otter trawl Gill nets n/ a n/ a n/ a Page 27

270 Appendix A: References Ahmad et al, 2009 West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia: acoustic, fishery oceanography and bottom substrate surveys. Editors Abu Talib Ahmad, Alias Man, Mazalina Ali. Department of Fisheries Malaysia. Burke, L., Selig, E and Spalding, M Reef at risk in Southeat Asia. World Resource Institute. CREP, National Coastal Resources and marine Environmental Profile of Malaysia The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations Malaysia. Chan (2007). Marine turtle research and conservation in Malaysia DoFM, 2008 Annual Report of the Department of Fisheries Malaysia Hadil R. & Richard, R Distribution and biological status of the pelagic resources off Sarawak Malaysia. Fisheries Bulletin No. 68. Department of Fisheries Malaysia. Hiew, K., K. Kassem, C. Devi, C. Grieve, K. Short Sustainable Fisheries Management in Malaysia: A need for an ecosystem approach. National Fisheries Symposium, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. July Hutomo, M., Nontji, A. And Dirhamsyah Regional Coastal Resources and Environment Profile for ASEAN Region. Institute for Science of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Jaaman, Conservation of Marine Mammals in Malaysia. Jaaman The status of endangered marine mammals in Borneo. MIMA Bulletin, 15: Jaaman, Marine mammals conservation in Malaysia: Key issues and challenges. Marsh, Dugongs Status reports and Action Plans for Countries and Territories. UNEP/DEWA NRE, 2008 Malaysian Parks Newsletter, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment pdf SEAFDEC, 1999 Regional Guidelines on Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in South East Asia, SEAFDEC, 1999 Tan, H.T.W, Chou, L.M., Yeo, D.C.J and Ng, P.K.L The natural Hhritage of Singapore. Second Edition. Tietze, U.; Siar, S.V.; Marmulla, G.; van Anrooy, R. Credit and microfinance needs in inland capture fisheries development and conservation in Asia. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No Rome, FAO p WWF, 2009 Survey of Marine Turtle Egg Consumption and Trade in Malaysia Report prepared by TRAFFIC Southeast Asia for WWF-Malaysia March 2009 Zakariah, Z.M., Ahmad, A.R., Tan, K.H., Basiron, M.N., and Ysoff, N.A National Report on Coral Reefs in coastal waters of the South China Sea: Malaysia Page 28

271 Appendix B: Number of vessels by fishery in Malaysia Table 10: No. of fishing vessels licensed & estimated to be operating on the W. Coast Table 11: More recent trend in licensed vessel numbers Year Trawl nets Fish Purse seines Gill/ Drift nets Others (Hooks & Lines, Trap) Total , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,157 Page 29

272 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix G: Country Report Maldives

273 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Tuna pole and line vessel. Source: Poseidon Country Report: Maldives Prepared by 711-REG

274 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION PEOPLE MET CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION... 3

275 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION Annex 2 of the terms of reference for this study state that: The geographic scope of this work are the Bay of Bengal sea areas of the Maldives, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Indian mackerel fisheries are present in all these areas [our emphasis] whilst the hilsa shad is restricted to India (West Bengal), Bangladesh, Myanmar and possibly Sri Lanka. However, under the section of the ToR outlining the project purpose of the BOBLME project, and the objective of sub-component 2.3 the text notes that: the subcomponent will support the following activities: (i) (ii) development of sub-regional fishery management plan for Indian mackerel (Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand) i.e. excluding the Maldives [our emphasis/addition]; (iii) development of sub-regional fishery management plan for Hilsa shad (Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar); iv) A visit to the Maldives by the consultants confirmed that there is no regular/commercial fishery for Indian mackerel in the Maldives (although very occasional limited catches of Indian mackerel are made in the north of the atoll chain, mainly for subsistence use). As there are also no hilsa fisheries in the country, it was therefore agreed with the BOBLME coordination unit prior to travelling that no pre-assessment for Indian mackerel should be conducted in the Maldives, or indeed of any other species. The consultants visit was thus used to discuss future support by the BOBLME project under sub-component 2.3, as well as policy issues being covered by the BOBLME project under sub-component 2.2. Unlike the text in other Appendices, this Appendix thus provides text only in the form of recommendations with regards to future support by the BOBLME project under subcomponent 2.3. Page 1

276 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 1.2 PEOPLE MET Name Title and Organisation Contact details Location of meeting Mr. Ali Riwan Dr. Naseer Hussain Sinan Shahaema A. Satter Adam Manik Hassan Shakeel Mohammed Zuhair Dr. Shiham Adam Bluepeace (NGO based in Male) Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture Senior Research Officer, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture Fisheries biologist, Marine Research Centre Director, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture Senior Biologist, Marine Research Centre Director General, Environmental Protection Agency Director, Marine Research Centre Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Page 2

277 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION A number of possible areas of intervention by the BOBLME were suggested for support under sub-component 2.3 during the meetings held in the Maldives. These are presented below along with some observations about each potential activity. 1. Study on the role of small pelagics in tuna diets. Such a study would be of interest to the Maldives given its high reliance on tuna species and the potential contribution of such diet studies to an understanding of the trophic relationships impacted by tuna fishing. Furthermore such a study might provide further information on movement and distribution patterns of small pelagic species in the Bay of Bengal. Earlier studies in the region indicated skipjack tuna feed on Engraulids and variety of pelagic species including squid, crustaceans and the diurnally migrating Myctophid species. Myctophids are believed to occur in large concentrations in the Indian Ocean and trials have been proposed for catching them to use an alternative livebait source for the pole-and-line fishery. Distribution and abundance of such species are poorly known in the Indian Ocean, and improved understanding would greatly facilitate tuna research and SEPODYM type simulation modelling. Advocacy for this activity may be stretching the project sub-component intent, given its focus on assessments and management plans for Indian mackerel, hilsa and sharks, and fact that IOTC has a remit for management of tuna stocks. 2. Study into the extent of the Indian mackerel fishery in the Maldives While it is widely believed that there is very little Indian mackerel present in Maldivian waters, it is also true that documented information to show that this is the case is very weak or non-existent, given that there is no dedicated Indian mackerel fishery, and no data collected on the species. A study could therefore focus on northern atolls (where limited and sporadic catches are believed to occur) in order to validate this assumption, and to obtain a participatory rural appraisal of the actual extent of Indian mackerel. Information could be collected on trends in catches over time, seasonality, marketing of catch, and so on. Such a study would of course fit well under sub-component, but on the assumption that Indian mackerel catches are indeed very small, then this activity would have little practical benefit to the Maldives except for proving what is already believed. 3. Study on sharks The Maldives now has in place regulations stipulating a total ban on shark fishing and export in/from its EEZ. There is therefore no need for any sort of additional shark management plan for the Maldives. However potential areas of interest for research could be the impact of the recent ban on shark fishing (and trade) on regional stocks, and interactions with shark populations in Sri Lanka (where shark fishing is permitted) e.g. to determine the role of large no-take areas on shark conservation. It is believed that there are no baseline studies of shark populations in the Maldives or in the Indian Ocean. Such a study would greatly Page 3

278 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal complement the existing monitoring efforts in the Maldives to validate (at some future time) whether shark populations have been rehabilitated or improved. Sharks are not covered under the remit of the present study being completed by the consultants, but other imminent BOBLME activities under sub-component 2.3 will consider shark assessments. 4. A study on scads (e.g. Decapterus spp + Selar curmnophthalmus) and the extent to which they might be migratory and a regional stock. Such a study is of potential interest in the Maldives because of the importance of scad as a bait fish for yellowfin tuna handline fishery and longline fishery A study of this nature would also fall broadly within the intentions of the sub-component and its focus on small pelagic species and sharks, which are all outside the remit of the IOTC. A potential drawback of such a study however is that scads in the Maldives are not thought to be a regional stock, and might also therefore just prove what is already believed. It addition, other recent work has also been completed on bait fisheries in the Maldives 1 and/or is still underway, dealing with a Bait Fisheries Management Framework, and with a Best Practice Guide and Code of Conduct. 1 Under IDA Credit: MAL Page 4

279 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix H: Country Report Myanmar

280 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Country Report: Myanmar Undertaken by 711-REG

281 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE MET FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS HILSA SHAD DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS SCALE, INTENSITY AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine, gill nets and stow nets Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine Unit of Assessment: Gill net and stow nets Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses SUMMARY HILSA SHAD FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS SCALE, INTENSITY AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine and bottom otter trawl fisheries Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine Unit of Assessment: Bottom otter trawl Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL... 33

282 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Tables TABLE 1: EXPORTED MARINE FISHERY PRODUCTS FROM MYANMAR FOR ANNUAL PERIOD FROM TABLE 2: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR HILSA SHAD... 8 TABLE 3: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR HISLA SHAD IN MYANMAR TABLE 4: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR INDIAN MACKEREL TABLE 5: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR INDO-PACIFIC MACKEREL TABLE 6: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR INDIAN MACKEREL IN MYANMAR Figures FIGURE 1: MYANMAR FISHING GROUNDS AND LANDING SITES... 1 FIGURE 2: ORGANISATIONAL CHART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES OF MYANMAR... 2 FIGURE 3: MYANMAR CAPTURE FISHERIES PRODUCTION FROM FIGURE 4: TYPICAL STOW NET CONFIGURATION... 7

283 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Acronyms APFIC ASEAN BOBLME BRKP CBFM CCRF COFI COREMAP CPUE DGCF DKP EAF(M) EU F FAD FAO FTDC GT IPOA IUU KG M MCS MEY MM MMAF MPA MSY MT NGO PSA RBF RBFM RFB RFMO TAC TED TURF Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission Association of Southeast Asian Nations Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Marine & Fisheries Research Organisation Community Based Fisheries Management Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Committee on Fisheries Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program Catch per Unit of Effort Directorate General of Capture Fisheries Dinas Perikanan Provinsi Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (Management) European Union Fishing effort Fish aggregating device Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fishing Technology Development Centre Gross tonnage International Plan of Action Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing) Kilogrammes Metres Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Maximum Economic Yield Millimetres Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Marine Protected Area Maximum Sustainable Yield Metric Tons Non Governmental Organisation Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Risk-Based Framework Rights Based Fisheries Management Regional Fisheries Body Regional Fisheries Management Organization Total Allowable Catch Turtle Exclusion Device Territorial use rights in fisheries

284 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION Mainland Myanmar coastline stretches approximately 3,000 km along the Bay of Bengal and Andaman Sea, with several large estuaries and delta systems, as well as numerous offshore islands. The main landing sites in Myanmar are around Yangon, at Pazuntaung Nyaungdan and Annawa, with a fish market at San Pya in Alone township. Other important landing sites along the coast include Thandwe, Mawlamyine, Myeik and Kawthoung (Figure 1). Figure 1: Myanmar fishing grounds and landing sites Source: FAO,

285 Hilsa shad is the most important exported marine fish in terms of both volume and value representing 26% and 20% respectively of Myanmar marine fish exports (DoF, 2010). Section 2 presents an assessment for vessels targeting this species at sea, at estuary mouths and within rivers. Indian mackerel landings constituted only 0.02% by volume of Myanmar exports, recorded over an annual period from However landings data for domestically consumed fish are unknown and it is anticipated that total landings for both hilsa shad and Indian mackerel will be significantly higher. Furthermore, it is understood that historically landings of Indian mackerel have been more prominent and for this reason a brief assessment for this species has been undertaken and is presented in Section 3. Management and development of fisheries resources in Myanmar waters is undertaken by the Department of Fisheries (DoF) of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. The organisational structure of the DoF is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Organisational chart of the Department of Fisheries of Myanmar Director General Deputy: Director General Director Fisheries Division Director Aquaculture Division Director R&D Division Director Admin & Finance Division AD Inland Fisheries AD Shrimp Task Force AD Marine Research Survey DD Planning & Statistics DD Coastal Fisheries AD Shrimp Culture DD Quality Control AD Finance AD Coastal AD Fish Culture AD Biological Lab AD Physical Lab BO Procurement AD Fish AD Hatchery AD Training & Education Institute of Fishing Technology Source: FAO,

286 1.2 CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE Total landings from Myanmar capture fisheries are presented in Figure 3 for period Growth has increased fairly steadily from 1966 to 1999 with an average increase of 3% from year to year. Since 2000, recorded landings by volume have increased dramatically to approximately 2.5 million tonnes in The most recent landing statists available present the exported quantities of marine capture fishery products from Myanmar (Table 1). Hilsa shad is the most economically important marine capture fishery product to be exported from Myanmar, representing 26% of the total volume and 20% of the total value. Landing statistics of domestically consumed fisheries products are not available. Figure 3: Myanmar capture fisheries production from Source: FAO,

287 Table 1: Exported marine fishery products from Myanmar for annual period from Commodities Tonnes US$ million Commodities Tonnes US$ million Hilsa 12, $ Queen fish $0.050 White pomfret 4, $ Dursky perch $0.049 Rosy jew fish 5, $ Hard tail scad $0.049 Yellow croaker 5, $9.721 Lonf fin cavalla $0.043 Ribbon fish 6, $8.502 Gloden fish $0.033 Big eye croaker 4, $4.552 Climbing perch $0.032 Sea eel 2, $3.858 NGA wine sein $0.030 Toungue sole 2, $3.298 Sillago/trump whiting $0.030 Black pomfret 1, $3.207 Pony fish $0.028 Barramundi (fillet) $2.040 Grouper $0.024 Thread fin $0.726 Sardine $0.020 Threadfin bream $0.592 Tooya $0.013 Koral/barramundi $0.571 Palatu / Indian mackerel $0.008 Spanish mackerel $0.499 Thread fin bream (fillet) $0.007 White croaker $0.358 Flat head fish (fillet) $0.006 Milky white fish $0.327 Nga myat kyee $0.005 Long fin moyarro $0.226 Wolf harring $0.003 Big eye illisha $0.203 Spotted sickel fish $0.002 Chinese pomfret $0.188 Nga yaung ma $0.002 Lotia $0.170 Marine cat fish $0.002 Red snapper (fillet) $1.280 Spotted croaker $0.002 Puffer $0.099 Mokkah $0.001 Tapashi $0.094 Black pomfret (fillet) $0.001 Line silver grunt $0.085 Round scad $0.001 Golden travelle $0.077 Long tail tuna $0.001 Barracuda $0.076 India halibut $ Grouper (fillet) $0.054 Chinese pomfret (fillet) $ Red snapper $0.052 White pomfret (fillet) $ Total 48, $ Source: Department of Fisheries,

288 1.3 ENVIRONMENT The diversity of Myanmar s coastal habitats includes large coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangroves, sandy beaches and mudflats. The estimated coral reefs area of Myanmar is around 1,700 km2 with a range of species and genera reported by various surveys (as cited in Hutomo et al, 2009). Along the southern coast is a complex of offshore islands known as Myeik Archipelago where the majority of Myanmar s coral reefs are found. They are also known to be present around the chain of islands between Ayeyarwardy Delta and Andaman Islands, but these have been minimally surveyed. The coastal zone is considered to be in good ecological condition with no sign of coral depletion (CREP, 2008), although it is recognised that there is a lack of scientific data and surveys to confirm this. Furthermore, according to the Reef at Risk Analysis 56% of Myanmar s coral reefs are threatened, with overfishing forming the major threat, followed by destructive fishing practises, coastal development and sedimentation (Burke et al, 2002). Seagrass beds of three species exist around Myanmar and are considered to be in healthy condition (Myanmar National report, 2008). Seagrass beds flourish mainly in the Myeik Archipelago and off Yanbye Island. Seabeds are most vulnerable to wastewater discharge from coastal industries, urban development and shrimp farms (Hutomo et al., 2009). Myanmar has 4,100 km2 of mangrove areas along its coastline, which are being systematically preserved. Mangrove ecosystems are widespread in the northern Rakhine coastal zones, northern Tanintharyi coastal zones and the Ayeyarwady Delta. The latter represents an important and extended mangrove forest, included in the Delta Forest Division. Twenty four species of mangroves are confirmed in Myanmar (CREP, 2008). Mangroves are reported to have suffered dramatic decline due to conversion of areas into rice fields. In relation to endangered species it is considered that the protection and law enforcement should be increased for dugongs, whale sharks and turtles. Four species of turtle have been recorded in Myanmar waters: green turtle Chelonia mydas, hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate, olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea and leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea. The latter is considered very rare in Myanmar waters. The Estuarine crocodile Crocodylus porosus and the river terrapin Batagur baska occur in the Ayeyarwady Delta, although the river terrapin s population has declined to possible extinction. Dugongs are rare and mostly found on the southern shelf of Rakhine coast and further north. Dugongs are considered to be at risk from intentional capture for meat, or incidental capture by fishing gear and death from destructive fishing practises. 5

289 1.4 PEOPLE MET Consultation was undertaken from 11 th -13 th October 2010 in Yangon. The following people were met and consulted: Name Title and Organisation Contact details U Mya Than Tun U Khin Ko Lay Department of Fisheries National Coordinator, BOBLME Project Director General Department of Fisheries mttun@myanmar.com.mm fisheries@myanmar.com.mm Location of meeting Yangon Yangon Khin Soe Tint Fishery Officer Kst1955@gmail.com Yangon Daw Win Win Le Deputy Fisheries Officer dwinwinle@gmail.com Yangon Saw Aung Ye Htet Lwin U Win Naing Aquaculture and Fisheries Hilsa processor Managing Director, Szyh Jetty, Shwe Zin Yaw Hein Manufacturing Co. Ltd Yangon Yangon Yangon In additional to these meetings the consultants attended the 2-day National Stakeholder Workshop on Myeik Archipelago Management and Sustainable Use, held as part of the BOBLME project. Presentations at the workshop included: Critical habitats and protected areas: mangrove, coral reefs and seagrass beds; Ecosystem approach to fishery management: basic oceanography, fish larvae patterns and endangered species; Alternative livelihood development; Public awareness; Existing planning and management capacity for fisheries and tourism sector; and Fisheries licensing system in Myanmar. 6

290 2 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS HILSA SHAD 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS Hilsa shad (T. ilisha) is anadromous and capable of withstanding a wide range of salinity. Hilsa spends the majority of its life cycle in the marine environment and migrates inland through rivers to spawn. This species is targeted throughout its life cycle; at sea by purse seiners, in estuaries by gill nets and in rivers by stow nets. The main rivers in Myanmar inland fisheries are Ayeyarwaddy, Chindwin, Sittatung and Thanlwin, which extend from the eastern part of the Bay of Bengal to the Gulf of Moattama and along the eastern edge of the Andaman Sea. Numbers of vessels involved in this fishery are unknown. A short description of each of the gear types is provided below. Purse seine are mobile gear that consist of a large netting wall which is set by the vessel from the surface to surround aggregated fish, both from the sides and underneath, thus preventing them escaping from the bottom of the net. The netting wall holds its position in the water column due to a floatline running along the top length of the net, and a leadline along the bottom. Gill nets are stationary gear consisting of a single netting wall kept more or less vertical by a float line and a weighted ground line. The net is generally set on the bottom when targeting demersal species and from the top when targeting pelagic species. The net is kept stationary by anchors on both ends and at intervals along the nets length. The mesh sizes of gill nets deployed by the Myanmar fleet are unknown, but expected to be between inches. Stow nets are stationary gear made from very fine netting, with mesh sizes typically 12mm. The nets are fixed to the benthos by anchors or stakes and placed according to the direction and strength of the current (FAO, 2010). The net endings, which are in a cone or pyramid shape (Figure 4), are usually hauled by hand while the body and stakes are left in position. As a consequence the gear can remain in the same location for a long period of time, with emptying of the conical ends on a regular basis. Figure 4: Typical stow net configuration Source: FAO,

291 2.2 SCALE, INTENSITY AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS For the purpose of this assessment on hilsa shad, three main units of assessment are defined as follows: 1. Purse seine vessels with 1 inch mesh size targeting small pelagic with Hilsa shad as one of the target species. 2. Gill nets at the river mouths and in estuaries 3. Stow nets operated within rivers. A first step in a Risk Based Framework for assessing data-poor fisheries is to determine the scale and intensity of the fishery. This is then used with the Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) which is provided in detail for Hilsa shad in the main report in order to determine the overall risk to the stock. A summary of the PSA for Hilsa shad is provided in Table 4. Table 2: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for Hilsa shad Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Total Productivity Gear Purse seine Low >80 Gill nets Med Stow nets Med Source: Poseidon The productivity element of the risk assessment is discussed in the main report and shows hilsa to be a highly productive species. Hilsa shad is highly susceptible to being caught by the gill nets and stow nets on account of them targeting the areas where hilsa are returning to spawn. The mesh sizes of these gears also reflect a low selectivity and therefore an overall medium risk to the hilsa stock status. The purse seine gear, operated at sea, has a lower chance of catching hilsa and therefore a better availability score. Furthermore, the recent increase in mesh size to 2.5 inches allows a relatively better selectivity score, compared to the two static gear types. The overall risk of the purse seine fleet is therefore assessed as low to the hilsa stock status. Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score 8

292 2.3 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine, gill nets and stow nets PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Target spp status Reference points (not if RBF) Stock rebuilding Fishbase, FAO fact sheets, Milton, 2010 Hilsa shad has been assessed using the Risk Based Framework approach developed by the MSC. The purse seine fishery is considered to be of low risk to the stock status of hilsa, while the gill net and stow net fisheries are of medium risk. Limited data exists on the status of hilsa within Myanmar waters, although it is understood that Milton (2010) reports that hilsa in Myanmar is less susceptible to overfishing compared to Bangladesh fisheries. An overall intermediate score is therefore appropriate. Milton, 2010 Although various estimates of B MSY have been calculated, mainly based on large length-frequency (L-F) analyses (Milton, 2010), no biomassbased reference points have been utilised for hilsa fisheries management in Myanmar. Given the complexities involved in measuring hilsa abundance, the current L-F based stock assessments are a realistic and practical approach given data limitations. Not expected to be rebuilding, and as RBF used to score and no score is given Harvest strategy Harvest Strategy There is no known harvest strategy in place for the fishery that combines monitoring, harvest control rules and management actions. One measure in place relates to minimum mesh size, however the level of compliance is unknown and this is not considered appropriate to manage the fishery. n/a 9

293 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Harvest control rules and tools There are no known harvest control rules and tools in place that specifically manage the removal of hilsa shad. Regulations stipulate a minimum mesh size of 1 inch for purse seine gear, although the extent of compliance is unknown Information / monitoring Stock Assessment (not if RBF) Department of Fisheries, 2010 There are currently no known logbook schemes in operation. Statistics are reported for exported volume and value of hilsa on an annual basis, however the quantity of hilsa landed for domestic consumption is unknown. There is no gear differentiation within landing statistics for hilsa shad. See also comments in on information on stock status. Using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) this would normally be scored a default Intermediate status. However given the lack information on which to base a stock assessment and the lack of management drivers to demand an assessment of this stock, it is scored as weak. n/a Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance There is a lack of knowledge on many aspects relating to the stock status of hilsa shad in Myanmar. The existence of genetically distinct stocks and associated boundaries within Myanmar and between Myanmar, Bangladesh and India are unknown. Accurate assessments of stock biomass are not available. No recent reference points have been defined and there is no harvest strategy or harvest control rules and tools in place to manage the fishery, other than a minimum mesh size which (at the current size) is not appropriate to manage the stock, especially for gill net and stow net fisheries. While detailed export figures are available, landings data (including both domestically consumed and exported figures) are not available at a species or gear level. 10

294 2.3.3 Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses Specific recommendations to address weaknesses highlighted above include: Support to planned and future genetic studies to determine hilsa shad stock units; Provide training and capacity building on stock assessment methodologies for small pelagic species; Undertake coordinated and complete stock assessments on a regular (annual) basis to determine stock status of hilsa shad and establish appropriate reference points; Collect data on landings by species for all vessel sizes and gear types. Ensure appropriate detail to allow analysis of catch/effort and size composition; Explore potential to introduce logbook scheme to vessels; and Develop appropriate harvest control rules (such as increase in mesh size for all gears targeting hilsa). 11

295 2.4 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine The assessment below has been combined for hilsa and Indian mackerel species, since they are landed by the same purse seine fishery. PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained species Retained spp Status Retained spp management Retained spp Information Discard species Discard spp Status Discard spp Management Hutomo et al 2009, Fishbase It has not been possible to determine the retained species taken in the purse seine fishery since landings statistics are not presented by gear type. It is, however, understood that a number of small pelagic species are landed in the purse seine fishery including hilsa, Indian mackerel and Indo pacific mackerel. The former two species are assessed as target species elsewhere in this report. A PSA assessment indicates that the purse seine fishery is of low risk to Indo Pacific mackerel. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty There is seasonal closure for 3 months during May-July to protect spawning grounds. Four fishery blocks (as represented in Figure 1) are closed, although the locations of these blocks are not known. There is no other effective management of the small pelagic purse seine fishery. The minimum mesh size of 1 inch is not appropriate to control the volume or size of fish landed and juveniles are expected to be landed in high proportions to enter the fish supplement and fish oil trade. The effect on recruitment for these small pelagic species due to high juvenile catch rates is unknown. There are no other controls over the size of fish landed or the volumes landed. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Export data has been provided. However, no accurate landings data is available reporting both exported and domestically consumed volumes. It is not possible to determine catch composition for the purse seine fleet landing small pelagics. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimisation management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. 12

296 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Discard spp Information ETP species ETP spp Status ETP spp Management ETP spp Information Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would thus benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, Kirby, 2006 Potential purse seine interaction with ETP species is likely to be limited to dolphins and turtles, both of which are released alive prior to hauling nets. A high survivability rate (>90%) is expected. A risk assessment in the Pacific Ocean (Kirby, 2006) indicates that sharks are the highest risk group in purse seines at greatest risk are the low fecundity silky shark, short-finned mako, porbeagle, and oceanic whitetip rather than the more fecund blue sharks and hammerheads. These shark species are at more risk from the tuna fisheries than the small pelagic fisheries since they often trail schools of tuna for prey. Overall the risk of the small pelagic purse seine fishery is of intermediate concern, based primarily on shark interactions. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, BOBLME workshop There are closed areas in inshore locations specifically to protect turtles when they are returning to breed. The locations of these areas are unknown. The Myeik Archipelago Islands have large areas closed to fishing, primarily to protect coral reef habitats, but this also acts to protect ETP species in this area. No management is known to reduce interactions with sharks. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, BOBLME workshop, Hutomo et al, 2009 Data on presence and distribution of ETP species around the Myeik Archipelago Islands is well understood and protection of this area is regarded with high national importance. However, data for ETP species outside this area are limited, with the exception of turtle breeding areas which have informed closure of certain locations. Data on specific purse seine interactions with ETP species is lacking. In particular observer data to monitor shark bycatch in Myanmar fisheries is rare and effort should be focused to address this issue across the fleet. 13

297 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) Habitat Management Habitat Information Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Habitat impacts from this surface pelagic fishery are highly likely to be minimal. Lost gear is rare, although the occasional FAD is lost. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Due to minimal impact, management strategies are not necessary Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, BOBLME workshop, Hutomo et al, 2009 As with ETP species, the extent and location of important habitats including coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves are well understood for the areas surrounding the Myeik Archipelago Islands. Information is generally lacking for other areas. Interviews DoF, Fishbase The fishery catches a wide range of species including high rates of juveniles, which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is no ecosystem modelling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. Interviews DoF, Fishbase No specific ecosystem management measures are undertaken at national level. However, there are closed areas for habitat protection and turtle management measures. Current levels of removals of small pelagic species are not considered to be heavily over exploited; furthermore most small pelagic species have a short population doubling time. Despite this, management of the indirect effect of removing target and retained species from the food web requires management measures, which would also be applicable for retained species. Interviews DoF, Fishbase Total removals are not well known for Myanmar fisheries. There is little information on the ecological impacts of this fishery and ecosystem modelling has not been undertaken. 14

298 2.4.2 Unit of Assessment: Gill net and stow nets There are no differences between the outcomes of the hilsa assessments for gill nets and stow nets and therefore they are reported together in the table below. PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained species Retained spp Status Retained spp management Retained spp Information Discard species Discard spp Status Discard spp Management Discard spp Information There is no information available to allow this performance indicator to be assessed. It is unknown what species are landed together with hilsa shad in the estuarine and river mouth environments. While the retained species are unknown, it is known that no specific measures exist to manage their capture. The gill net and stow net fisheries operate with small mesh sizes with low selectivity, therefore likely to be catching a number of juvenile fish. No information has been provided on the volume of retained species landed by this hilsa fishery. Data for landings that are domestically consumed are not known to be collected. Data is not available at a gear level. Discards from these fisheries are understood to be non-existent. Discards from these fisheries are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimisation management is currently required. It is recommended that any management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. 15

299 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP species ETP spp Status ETP spp Management ETP spp Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) Habitat Management Habitat Information There is no information available to allow this performance indicator to be assessed. It is unknown what ETP species are present in the estuarine and riverine environments within Myanmar. It is anticipated that some species of river dolphin may exist, which could potentially interact with both gear types. There are no known management procedures to manage interaction of these fisheries with ETP species There is no information available to allow this performance indicator to be scored. The levels of ETP species interactions with these gears are unknown. Habitat impacts as a result of these gears are considered minimal. The interaction of bottom set gill nets is limited to the weights and bottom line touching the seabed. However, lost nets do have the potential to impact sensitive habitats, but rates of loss are not thought to be a major issue (although are unknown). Stow nets tend to be fixed in position for a long period of time and therefore do not have a large footprint of habitat impact. Although operated in high tidal conditions, lost gears are considered highly unlikely. There are no known management measures to protect sensitive habitats, however it is anticipated that gear interactions are minimal. No management structure exists to control the potential loss of gear e.g. due to rigging and gear failure. Nor is there a code of practise for gear retrieval or reporting of lost gear incidents. No information is available on the extent and distribution of habitats in the riverine and estuarine environments. The location of gear deployment is unknown. 16

300 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information The extent of lost gear incidents is unknown. The fisheries are likely to catch a wide range of species including high rates of juveniles in gill nets and stow nets with small mesh sizes, which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. Other than the target species it is unknown what other species are removed from the ecosystem by this gear. The overall impact on the ecosystem is therefore difficult to determine. There is no ecosystem modelling to predict impacts within these estuarine and riverine environments. No ecosystem management measures are undertaken at national level. Total removals are not well known for Myanmar fisheries. There is little information on the ecological impacts of this fishery and ecosystem modelling has not been undertaken Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key problems across all gear types relate to the status and management of retained species. The current mesh size for purse seine, gill nets and stow nets results in high catch rates of juveniles. This is likely to have implications for recruitment and is likely to lead to growth overfishing and possibly ecosystem overfishing. Landings data is not collected at a sufficient level to determine the total removals at species and gear levels and underreporting is expected due to lack of knowledge on levels landed for domestic consumption. The lack of discarding within these fisheries is considered a key strength; however this is primarily due to the landing of all fish including juveniles which itself is due to a lack of retained species management. Any measures introduced to manage retained species (such as TACs) should ensure that the negligible discard rate is maintained. Little is known about the extent of interaction with ETP species and no measures exist to manage this at each fishery level. Habitat impacts are not considered to be of concern for all three gear types; however knowledge is not sufficient to inform potential management requirements for both the gill net and stow net fisheries. There is little information on the ecological role of hilsa or the other species landed in these fisheries, their response to natural fluctuations and the impact of their removal from the ecosystem. Ecosystem modelling has not been undertaken for the marine, estuarine or freshwater ecosystems. 17

301 2.4.4 Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses Key recommendations from the above assessment and key findings are: Develop management of retained species through more selective fishing gear e.g. introduction of larger mesh sizes which would allow juveniles to escape (as is currently seen n trawling gear); Ensure consistent and robust data collation of fishery landing statistics at all fleet levels for domestic and export markets; Establish a program to identify and prioritize key areas to be designated as marine reserves to protect fish spawning areas, ETP species and habitat protection for estuarine and riverine environments; Establish a program for on-board observers to monitor and report on interactions with ETP species for all gear types. Use this information to shape any necessary measures to manage unacceptable interactions; Substantiate current release practices within the purse seine fleet through a code of conduct for ETP interactions including techniques to releases animals and reporting templates to record frequency and location of interactions. A guide to fishermen on how to identify ETP species, particularly sharks, would also be helpful; Establish ecosystem based management through the development of ecosystem criteria for management of small pelagic fisheries, and the consideration of species interactions (e.g. predator prey) in management; and Improve participation in international conventions to ensure improved management practices adhering to the Precautionary Principle and Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management. 18

302 2.5 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Limited information in relation to the legal and management framework of Myanmar fisheries has been provided. It has been requested that the Department of Fisheries provide further clarification on both fisheries laws and management, as well as provide comment on our current understanding on these specific points below. PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Governance and policy Legal Framework Interviews DoF, FAO, Management and development of fisheries resources is undertaken by the Department of Fishery (DoF) of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. The structure of the DoF is presented in Figure 2. The DoF has established an appropriate legal framework and formulated and implemented various strategies for the sustainable development and management of marine fisheries. Fisheries management is pursued by licensing, prescribing exploitable species, designating environmental friendly fishing gears and methods, imposing closed areas and seasons Consultation Interviews DoF Fishery officers from the DoF meet with stakeholders each week, however the extent of stakeholder influence is unclear Long-term Objectives Interviews DoF Fisheries 2020 poster, DoF It is understood that there are long term objectives for the management of Myanmar s fisheries and their environmental sustainability with high level objectives are presented under Fisheries However, these objectives are not fishery-specific and we do not have evidence of actions being implemented to deliver these objectives. A copy of the management plan and more information on fisheries management is requested from the DoF Incentives Interviews DoF No incentives to promote sustainable fishing (e.g. rights based mechanisms, subsidies for environmentally-friendly technologies and gear selectivity) are thought to be in place. Details of any fuel subsidies or other financial support measures provided to hilsa fishermen are requested from the DoF. Fishery specific management Fishery Objectives Interviews DoF There are no Indian mackerel or hilsa shad specific management plans, nor is there one covering all small pelagic species Decision making processes Interviews DoF The structures for supporting decisions making processes appear to be in place, but these do not result in measures and strategies to achieve 19

303 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference fishery specific objectives and no management plans have been implemented. No processes currently exist to link scientific outputs into management decision-making. Furthermore decision-making process affecting management of Indian mackerel specifically, and small pelagics more generally, are weak or nonexistent Compliance & Interviews DoF, FAO, 2010 Enforcement Myanmar Marine Fisheries Law, 2007 It is understood that the DoF have a programme for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of fisheries. An objective is for this programme to provide effective and efficient scientific data acquisition for resources evaluation and management of fisheries in Myanmar, although the extent to which this has been achieved is unknown. The MCS system provides a basis for effective monitoring and control of fisheries enforcement activities, to ensure that only authorized or licence-holding fishing vessels operate within the designated areas in the national EEZ. The was no evidence provided on the extent of inspections or infringements. The resources available to Myanmar fisheries for MCS suggests inspection of inshore fisheries such as hilsa does not occur and inspection of offshore fisheries (many under licence to foreign vessels) is limited. The maximum fine levels proposed in the 2007 Maritime law are noted to be very high in relation to average earnings for small scale fishermen, but for offshore vessel-owners these appear manageable levels such fines. The following queries remain outstanding in relation to this indicator: Is there any information available on the extent of record keeping on inspections and infringements? Are sanctions felt to be appropriate and sufficient to act as a deterrent? What is the general view with regards to compliance in hilsa fisheries? Are there particular times of the year, areas, or groups of fishermen that are known to be high risk? Research Plan Interviews DoF Performance Evaluation There are no specific Indian mackerel, hilsa shad or small pelagic research plans in place. Myanmar s ongoing involvement and cooperation in the SEAFDEC project titled Tagging Program For Economically Important Pelagic Species in South China Sea And Andaman sea is noted. Interviews DoF There are no specific Indian mackerel, hilsa shad or small pelagic management plans and therefore no plans to evaluate. 20

304 2.5.1 Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance A key weakness is the lack of resources that could be applied to the management and assessment of small pelagic species. This indicates that specific management plans and control measures would be difficult to implement even if developed Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses Specific recommendations for improvement across Myanmar small pelagic fisheries include: Setting and implementing a national management plan for small pelagic on a species by species or grouped basis as appropriate; Improving data collection at all scales, including fish landed for domestic consumption, for all gear types and recorded at species level; Design a comprehensive plan for stock assessments of small pelagic species to be undertaken on a regular basis; Improve funding for scientific research and monitoring, to improve coverage and quality of current information collection systems and strengthen scientific input into decision making; Improve funding for practical implementation of technical gear measures including Turtle Exclusion Devices and Juvenile Bycatch Excluder Devices. 21

305 2.6 SUMMARY HILSA SHAD The table below provides a summary of the performance for Hilsa shad in Myanmar Table 3: Summary performance table for Hisla shad in Myanmar Unit of Assessment Principle 1: Stock status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Outcome Harvest strategy Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific mang Gear Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding ifnecessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discardsstatus Discards management Discards info / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation Gill nets 1 0 n/a Stow nets 1 0 n/a Purse seine 1 0 n/a

306 3 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS For the purpose of this assessment on Indian mackerel, two main units of assessment are defined as follows: 1. Purse seine vessels with 1 inch mesh size targeting small pelagic species with Indian mackerel landed as a minor bycatch species. 2. Bottom otter trawl fishery with 1.5 inch mesh size targeting shrimp and 2.5 inch mesh size targeting demersal fish and landing Indian mackerel as a minor bycatch species. The two main types of purse seines nets employed in Myanmar waters are the fish purse seine, which is used to catch small pelagic species, and the anchovy purse seine, for anchovies in coastal waters, especially in the northern sector of Rakhine state. The anchovy purse seine is not known to land Indian mackerel and will not be assessed further. In Myanmar, the purse seine nets are operated in a traditional manner, without fish aggregating devices (FADs). Catching efficiency of this gear has not improved through the years. There are no new fishing techniques to increase fishing pressure on stocks of small pelagic species. Most purse seiners have a skipper with expertise in seeking out fish schools relative to the fish lures, and at night, free-school scouting purse nets using lights. The purse seine fishery mainly harvests small mackerels and sardine species, such as Indo Pacific mackerel Rastelliger brachysoma and Sardinella spp. (FAO, 2010). Otter bottom trawl nets are the main gear for demersal finfish and penaeid prawns. The trawl fisheries are of sizable scale in Myanmar and contributed more than 40% to marine landing in The trawlers landed a large number of fish species. When demersal species were still the main catch, the trawl nets caught pelagic finfish, mainly the Indo- Pacific mackerel R. brachysoma. This resulted in the Indo-Pacific mackerel being caught mainly by bottom trawl nets. Penaeid shrimps are important for trawlers operating in inshore waters, particularly on the coast of Rakhine. The rapid development and concentration of the trawl fishery within coastal waters has result in the current intensive exploitation of the coastal demersal finfish and penaeid shrimp resources (FAO, 2010). 23

307 3.2 SCALE, INTENSITY AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS A first step in a Risk Based Framework for assessing data-poor fisheries is to determine the scale and intensity of the fishery. This is then used with the Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) which is provided in detail for Indian mackerel in the main report in order to determine the overall risk to the stock. A summary of the PSA for Indian mackerel is provided in Table 4. Table 4: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for Indian Mackerel Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Gear Purse seine High <60 Btm Otter trawl High <60 Source: Poseidon Based on the PSA assessment, Indian mackerel is shown to be highly productive with a minimum population doubling time less than 15 months (Fishbase, 2010). Indian mackerel is highly susceptible to being caught by the purse seine and trawl fleets. Vessels deploying these gears and operating throughout the Bay of Bengal area are likely to overlap > 30% of the natural distribution of Indian mackerel, as well as having a high overlap with the habitat and depth range inhabited by this species. Due to the mesh sizes of these gears, they have a low selectivity in that most fish encountered will be captured. From a stock status perspective both purse seine and trawl fisheries are considered to be high risk to Indian mackerel. A PSA has also been undertaken for Indo-Pacific mackerel and is presented in Table 5. Table 5: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for Indo-Pacific mackerel Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Total Productivity Availability Encounterability PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Gear Purse seine Med Btm Otter trawl Med Source: Poseidon Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Selectivity Post-capture mortality Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) Total (multiplicative) PSA Score PSA Score Risk Category Risk Category 24 MSC score MSC score

308 3.3 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine and bottom otter trawl fisheries PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Target spp status Reference points (not if RBF) Stock rebuilding Fishbase, FAO fact sheets, Hutomo et al (2009) Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta has been assessed using the RBF PSA methodology. The species has a high productivity, with a maximum age of 4-5 years and an estimated population doubling time of 15 months. They are pelagic broadcast spawners and have a trophic level of While this species scores well under productivity attributes, it does not under selectivity. It is likely to be fished over most of its geographic and depth range. Being a neritic species with common distribution from 20-90m depth, it is likely to have high encounterability with fisheries. It is recognised that Myanmar has participated in the regional tagging project of Indian mackerel, run by SEAFDEC. This study is ongoing and the present levels of returns have not allowed assessment of Indian mackerel population dynamics. While the increase in mesh size for the demersal trawling fleet from 1 inch to 1.5 inches for prawn fishery and 2.5 inches for the demersal finfish fishery is commendable, it is still considered likely that juveniles will be landed by the fishery (note that average size of maturity for females is 19cm, or 7.5 inches). n/a Due to the lack of stock assessment, there are no limit or target reference points for stock management and Bmsy (the biomass at which Maximum Sustainable Yield, is achieved) is unknown. Not expected to be rebuilding, and as RBF used to score and no score is given Harvest strategy Harvest Strategy n/a Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty There is no harvest strategy in place for the fishery that combines monitoring, harvest control rules and management actions. One measure in place relates to minimum mesh size of 1 inch for purse seine and inch for demersal trawl, however this is not considered appropriate to manage the fishery. 25

309 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring Stock Assessment (not if RBF) Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty There are no harvest control rules and tools in place that specifically manage the removal of Indian mackerel. Interviews DGCF, FTDC, Research Institute Logbooks are believed to be in operation for the demesal trawling fleet, but it is unknown if logbooks are maintained for the purse seine fishery. There is no gear differentiation within landing statistics for Indian mackerel See also comments in on information on stock status. Using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) this would normally be scored a default Intermediate status. However given the lack information on which to base a stock assessment and the lack of management drivers to demand an assessment of this stock, it is scored as weak. n/a Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance There is a lack of knowledge on many aspects relating to the stock status of Indian mackerel in Myanmar. The existence of genetically distinct stocks and associated boundaries are unknown. Accurate and complete assessments of stock biomass are not available. No recent reference points have been defined and there is no harvest strategy or harvest control rules and tools in place to manage the fishery, other than a minimum mesh size which is not appropriate to manage the Indian mackerel stock for all gear types. It is however noted that the mesh size for the demersal trawling fleet targeting finfish was recently increased to 2.5 inches. Landing statistics are not provided in sufficient detail and do not allow catch per unit effort to be calculated. 26

310 3.3.3 Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses Specific recommendations to address weaknesses highlighted above include: Support to planned and future genetic studies to determine Indian mackerel stock units; Provide training and capacity building on stock assessment methodologies for small pelagic species; Undertake coordinated and complete stock assessments on a regular (annual) basis to determine stock status of Indian mackerel and establish appropriate reference points; Collect data on landings by species for all vessel sizes and gear types. Ensure appropriate detail to allow analysis of catch/effort and size composition; and Develop appropriate harvest control rules. 27

311 3.4 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment: Purse seine It is understood that Indian mackerel is landed by the same fleet of purse seiners that target hilsa shad. The Principle 2: Ecosystem Impacts assessment undertaken for hilsa is therefore applicable for this Indian mackerel fishery and will not be repeated here. This assessment is presented in Section 2.4.1: Unit of Assessment Purse Seine Unit of Assessment: Bottom otter trawl PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained species Retained spp Status Retained spp management Retained spp Information Discard species Discard spp Status The bottom otter trawls are predominately targeting shrimps and demersal fish. Indian mackerel are taken as bycatch when the nets are hauled through the water column. The demersal fish species associated with this fishery are unknown. The current status of shrimp fisheries is also unknown. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty The minimum mesh size for demersal trawling fleet was recently increased under a Regulation introduced on 1 st September This increased prawn trawl nets to 1.5 inch mesh size and finfish trawl nets to 2.5 inches. Due to the timescale of this introduction it is currently too early to tell if the numbers of juvenile fish landed is decreasing. There are no other controls over the size of fish landed or the volumes landed. There is seasonal closure for 3 months during May-July to protect spawning grounds. Four fishery blocks (as represented in Figure 1) are closed, although the locations of these blocks are not known. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty It is understood that logbook schemes are in place for demersal trawling fleet. Data from these logbooks have not been available for assessment. It is unknown if all vessel size complete logbook are to what extent landings for local consumption are recorded. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. 28

312 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Discard spp Management Discard spp Information ETP species ETP spp Status ETP spp Management ETP spp Information Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Discards from this fishery are understood to be non-existent. As a result no bycatch minimisation management is currently required. It is recommended that any further management implemented to address retained species should ensure that discards continue to be minimal. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. This fishery would benefit from an observer programme to verify this low level/ negligible impact. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Demersal trawl gear in this area is likely to incidentally catch turtles. While the main disturbance and threat to turtles is likely to be from impacts occurring at nesting sites, the bycatch of turtles in shrimp trawls is likely to be high. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Area C4 is closed for the entire year in order to protect turtle nesting sites. This area is known to be an important stretch of water for transiting green turtles. The Myeik Archipelago Islands have large areas closed to fishing, primarily to protect coral reef habitats, but this also acts to protect ETP species in this area. Turtle Excluder Devices (TED) have been trialled by the Fisheries Technology Department, however they are not mandatorily or voluntarily implemented within demersal trawling fleet. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Data on the presence and distribution of ETP species is available for the areas surrounding the Myeik Archipelago Islands. However, data outside this area could be improved; furthermore data specific to demersal trawl interaction with ETP species is lacking. In particular observer data to monitor turtle bycatch would be beneficial to establish the true extent of status and required management measures. 29

313 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) Habitat Management Habitat Information Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty Habitat impacts from this bottom otter trawl fishery are likely to be significant. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, BOBLME workshop Strategies are in place to manage the habitat impact through closed areas to protect coral reefs around the Myeik Archipelago Islands. However the extent and spatial distribution of corals outside this area is less understood and no other management measures exist to protect their presence. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, BOBLME workshop As with ETP species, the extent and location of important habitats including coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves are well understood for the areas surrounding the Myeik Archipelago Islands. Information is generally lacking for other areas. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, BOBLME workshop The fishery catches a wide range of species including high rates of juveniles, which may be of concern to recruitment of these species. While the trophic level of most species caught is well understood, there is not ecosystem modelling to predict impacts of removal at current rates. Demersal trawling gear also indiscriminately removes of a wide range of species and is not as targeted as other gears. The fishery therefore scores poorly for ecosystem status. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, BOBLME workshop No ecosystem management measures are undertaken at national level. Due to the higher degree of indirect effects associated with habitat impacts the fishery scores worse than other gear types. Interviews DoF, Szyh Jetty, BOBLME workshop Total removals are not well known for Myanmar fisheries. There is little information on the ecological impacts of this fishery and ecosystem modelling has not been undertaken. 30

314 3.4.3 Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key weaknesses are largely consistent with those presented under hilsa P2 assessment for the small pelagic purse seine fishery, presented in Section In addition to these, the major weakness for the trawl gear is associated with habitat and ETP interactions Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses Key recommendations over and above those presented in Section and specific to the demersal trawl fleet include: Introduction of TEDs to the trawl fleet, prioritizing those of most impact to turtles i.e. those in coastal locations and targeting shrimp; and Improve knowledge on habitat status with particular focus on coral reef systems with the view of establishing further closed areas to trawl fisheries. 31

315 3.5 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK The management framework, key weaknesses and recommendations for the Indian mackerel fishery are consistent with those presented for hilsa shad in Section 2.5. For Indian Mackerel the capacity problems identified are exacerbated by the offshore fishery mainly involving foreign vessels under license that are not always landing catches back into Myanmar. 32

316 3.6 SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL The table below provides a summary of the performance for Indian mackerel in Myanmar Table 6: Summary performance table for Indian Mackerel in Myanmar Unit of Assessment Principle 1: Stock status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Outcome Harvest strategy Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific mang Gear Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding ifnecessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discardsstatus Discards management Discards info / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation Purse seine 0 0 n/a Btm otter trawl 0 0 n/a

317 Annex 1: References Burke L., Selig, E. and Spalding, M Reef at risk in Southeast Asia. World Resource Institute. CREP (Myanmar National Report) (2008). National and Regional Coastal Resources and Environment Profile for ASEAN Region: Myanmar. Myint Myint Khaing, Ministry of Science and Technology, Union of Myan. Department of Fisheries, (2010). Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Department of Fisheries. Statistics of Exported Fish and Fishery Products from Myanmar FAO, (2010). Fishery and Aquaculture Country profiles. Myanmar. Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. [Cited 22 November 2010]. FAO, (2010). Fishing gear types: Stow nets Fishbase (2010). Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta. Fishbase (2010). Hilsa shad Tenualosa ilisha Hutomo, M., Nontji, A. and Dirhamsyah. (2009). Regional Coastal Resources and Environment Profile for ASEAN Region. Institute for Science of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Khine, L.L (2007). Population dynamics of Tenualosa ilisha in the offshore waters of Ayeyarwady Division. Kirby, D (2006). Ecological Risk Assessment for Species Caught in WCPO Tuna Fisheries: Inherent Risk as Determined by Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. WCPFC SC2 2006/EB WP 1. Scientific Committee Second Regular Session August 2006, Manila, Philippines. Lack M., and Meere F. (2009). Regional Plan of Action for Sharks: Guidance for Pacific Island Countries and Territories on the Conservation and Management of Sharks, Shellack Pty Ltd, Commissioned by FFA Milton, D.A. (2010). Status of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) management in the Bay of Bengal: an assessment of population risk and data gaps for more effective regional management. Report to FAO Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project, 15 February pp. 34

318 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix I: Country Report Sri Lanka

319 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Beach seine net being hauled at Beruwela. Source: Ms. Deishini Herath Country Report: Sri Lanka Prepared by 711-REG

320 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ENVIRONMENT SCALE, INTENSITY AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS (SICA) PEOPLE MET FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Assessment Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment A: Small-mesh gillnets Unit of Assessment B: Beach seines Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Assessment Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL Annexes ANNEX 1: REFERENCES Tables TABLE 1: GEARS USED IN SIR LANKA TO CATCH INDIAN MACKEREL... 2 TABLE 2: SPECIES COMPOSITION OF SMALL-MESH GILLNET CATCHES (2008 & 2009)... 3 TABLE 3: SPECIES COMPOSITION OF BEACH SEINE CATCHES... 4 TABLE 4: NO. OF VESSELS POTENTIALLY USING SMALL-MESH GILLNETS TO TARGET SMALL PELAGIC SPECIES... 5 TABLE 5: SMALL PELAGIC LANDINGS BY DISTRICT (TONNES, 2009)... 6 TABLE 6: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR INDIAN MACKEREL IN SRI LANKA Figures FIGURE 1: MAP OF SRI LANKA... 1 FIGURE 2: SMALL MESH GILLNET VESSELS IN NEGOMBO - SORTING THE CATCH... 4 FIGURE 3: LANDINGS OF SMALL PELAGIC SPECIES 2003 TO 2009 (TONNES)... 5 FIGURE 4: PRODUCTIVITY / SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS (INC. SICA)... 7 FIGURE 5: SMALL PELAGIC FISHERMEN IN NEGOMBO FIGURE 6: BEACH SEINE, BERUWELA... 17

321 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Acronyms BOBLME CIDA CPUE CZMP DARD FAO MARD MTRB NARA NTRB OFRP PSA RBF SICA Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Canadian International Development Agency Catch Per Unit of Effort Coastal Zone Management Plan Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations) Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Motorized traditional boats National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency Non-motorized traditional boats Fibreglass reinforced plastic boats Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis Risk Based Framework Scale, Intensity and Consequences Analysis

322 1 OVERVIEW The island of Sri Lanka (Figure 1) is located in the Indian Ocean to the southeast of India. Its area is approximately 65,610km² with a coastline of about 1,620km (Joseph, undated). Sri Lanka and the southern tip of India share the same continental shelf and are separated by a shallow sea, the Palk Strait, which is barely 30m deep. However, the shelf ends more abruptly in the south and east of Sri Lanka, averaging 22.5 km in width and rarely extending beyond 40 km. Within the shelf area, estimated to cover about 30,000km², the mean water depth is about 75m, but the depth drops abruptly to 900m within 3km and 1,800m within about 15 km of the shelf s edge. Beyond this there is a steep descent of over 5,500m to the depths of the Indian Ocean (Madduma Bandara, 1989). Figure 1: Map of Sri Lanka 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS Although the Indian mackerel is a popular fish in Sri Lanka, it is not a major target fishery and is mainly landed as a minor bycatch from fisheries targeting other small pelagic species, primarily the spotted sardinella (Amblygaster sirm). Three main gears are used to catch Indian mackerel in Sri Lanka, as shown below in Table 1. Page 1

323 Table 1: Gears used in Sir Lanka to catch Indian mackerel Gear Locations & seasons Fleet characteristics Other factors Small mesh gillnet (2.5 3 cm mesh) Small mesh gillnet (4-4.5 cm mesh) Beach seine (< 1 cm mesh) NW: June Oct W: Jan-mar & Aug- Dec S: June - Nov NW: July to Sep in NW Entire coast, at specific traditional beach locations hp vessels out-board engine fibreglass reinforced plastic boats (OFRP); motorized traditional Boats ((MTRB); & nonmotorized traditional boats (NTRB). 2-3 crew Shore-based, except to tow out net with a beach seine craft (NBSB). 20 persons 10-30m water depth. Use panels 1,500 meshes in length 120 and meshes in depth Up to 1,000m long. Shallow, inshore waters <10m deep. The small mesh gillnet fishery is the most important, although mainly targets sardinallas and other smaller pelagic species. The slightly larger (but still small) mesh (4-4.5 cm) used at specific periods of the year is more focused on Indian mackerel and other slightly larger small pelagic species such as the Decapterus scads. Gillnet fisheries are coastal in nature operating mainly over the wider shallow continental shelf in the north of the country, operating out to 25 km offshore in motorised boats and 2 km in un-motorised vessels. The different sized mesh nets are used by the same vessels, with a switch to the larger mesh nets for small periods of the year when the Indian mackerel is more targeted. As such, for the purpose of this assessment, small-mesh gillnets are considered as one unit of assessment. Gillnets are set on the surface, usually early in the morning and occasionally overnight. The catches from a sample of motorised fibreglass, mortised traditional and non-motorised traditional gillnet vessels for 2008 & 2009 at selected locations is provided in Table 2, and shows that Indian mackerel represents only around 2-3% of the total catch by these vessels. Page 2

324 Table 2: Species composition of small-mesh gillnet catches (2008 & 2009) A Species OTRP MTRB NTRB All boats Kg/yr % Kg/yr % Kg/yr % Kg/yr % Amblygaster sirm 41,059 46% 5,462 54% 139 3% 46,660 45% Sardinella gibbosa 7,895 9% 2,115 21% 14 0% 10,024 10% Ariidae 5,716 6% - 0% 1 0% 5,717 6% Sardinella albella 3,722 4% 35 0% % 4,731 5% Carangidae 3,411 4% 11 0% 206 5% 3,628 3% Sardinella longiceps 1,778 2% 1,142 11% % 3,487 3% Amblygaster clupeoides 3,196 4% 1 0% 1 0% 3,198 3% Other rockfish 2,977 3% 14 0% 48 1% 3,038 3% Rastrelliger kanagurta 2,357 3% 317 3% 31 1% 2,705 3% Stolephorus heterolobus 2,491 3% - 0% 16 0% 2,508 2% Selar crumenophthalmus 1,726 2% 60 1% 409 9% 2,195 2% Pellona ditchela 1,357 2% 13 0% 346 8% 1,717 2% Auxis thazard 1,277 1% - 0% - 0% 1,277 1% Other small pelagics 1,040 1% 5 0% 64 1% 1,109 1% Stolephorus bataviensis 1,085 1% - 0% 13 0% 1,098 1% Decapterus russelli 815 1% 96 1% 15 0% 926 1% Gazza minuta 492 1% 1 0% 275 6% 768 1% Chirocentrus dorab 558 1% 15 0% 185 4% 758 1% Exocoetidae 746 1% - 0% - 0% 746 1% Dussumieria acuta 487 1% 115 1% 73 2% 674 1% Auxis rochei 617 1% - 0% - 0% 617 1% Other species 4,508 5% 719 7% % 6,175 6% TOTAL 89, % 10, % 4, % 103, % B Species OTRP MTRB NTRB All boats Kg/yr % Kg/yr % Kg/yr % Kg/yr % Amblygaster sirm 40,066 43% 4,718 63% 198 4% 44,982 43% Sardinela longiceps 4,466 5% 603 8% % 6,044 6% Stolephorus heterolobus 4,561 5% 10 0% 58 1% 4,629 4% Carangidae 3,590 4% 28 0% 153 3% 3,771 4% Sardinella gibbosa 2,036 2% 1,460 19% 156 3% 3,652 3% Sardinella albella 2,567 3% 39 1% % 3,356 3% Auxis thazard 2,950 3% - 0% - 0% 2,950 3% Amblygaster clupeoides 2,919 3% - 0% - 0% 2,919 3% Other rockfish 2,749 3% - 0% 22 0% 2,770 3% Sardinella sindensis 2,464 3% 44 1% 213 4% 2,721 3% Ariidae 2,544 3% 1 0% 3 0% 2,547 2% Selar crumenophthalmus 1,630 2% - 0% % 2,144 2% Decapterus russelli 1,676 2% 2 0% 5 0% 1,683 2% Euthynnus affinis 1,613 2% 5 0% - 0% 1,618 2% Auxis rochei 1,617 2% - 0% - 0% 1,617 2% Other small pelagics 1,359 1% - 0% 75 1% 1,434 1% Exocoetidae 1,382 1% - 0% - 0% 1,382 1% Chirocentrus dorab 1,185 1% 13 0% 179 4% 1,377 1% Stolephorus bataviensis 1,344 1% - 0% - 0% 1,344 1% Rastrelliger kanagurta 1,102 1% 66 1% 65 1% 1,234 1% Other species 9,012 10% 512 7% 1,713 34% 11,237 11% Total 92, % 7, % 5, % 105, % Source: NARA internal records (Small Pelagic Survey) Page 3

325 Figure 2: Small mesh gillnet vessels in Negombo - sorting the catch Source: Poseidon The beach seine fishery is a very small-mesh traditional fishing method in designated zones of the sub-littoral zone. This gear is up to a kilometre in length, and is towed by a boat around the shore line in shallow sub-tidal waters down to around 10 m. It consists of a small mesh (< 1cm) encircling net with an additional cod end. Typically, two hauls a day are made in the peak season (one in the morning and one in the evening), with Sundays considered a day of rest. The net is used on sandy or muddy substrates, and has a large number of small (c. 1 kg) weights to keep the footrope on the bottom. Catches average around kg per haul, mostly of sardines (Sardinella spp.), anchovies (Stolephorus spp.) and silver bellies (Leiognathus spp.) see Table 3. Table 3: Species composition of beach seine catches Species NW 1992 to 1994 Southern Kg / operation % rank Kg / operation % rank Sardinella gibbosa S. albella Amblygaster sirm Leiognathus sp Carangids Rastrelliger kanagurta Stolephorus sp Sphyreana sp Chirocentrus sp Dussumieria accuta Pellona sp Trichurus so Source: Fernando (2001) Page 4

326 1.2 CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE Current effort levels in the mixed small-mesh gillnet pelagic fishery are not known. However, fleet numbers for the main vessels catching small pelagic species are shown in Table 4 and indicate very significant increases in recent years. Much of the increase has been fuelled by donations of boats following the tsunami at the end of Of course many of these vessels may use gear not catching small pelagics, rather than the small-mesh gill nets which do, but Table 4 provides a strong indication that effort levels on small pelagics have been increasing significantly in recent years. There were also 975 beach seine operations in the country in Table 4: No. of vessels potentially using small-mesh gillnets to target small pelagic species Year Outboard FRP Outboard traditional Non-motorised traditional ,690 1,205 15, , , , , , , , , ,010 1,660 14, ,860 1,842 16, ,200 1,680 16, ,847 1,959 17, ,193 2,126 18,243 Source: Sri Lankan fisheries statistics, 2009 The supposition about rising effort levels is supported by national catch levels of small pelagic species shown in Figure 3 overleaf, which demonstrates an increase of 40% in landed volumes over the last 7 years. Landed volumes are not recorded by species, but the data collected by NARA shows that Indian mackerel contributed just 2.61% of total small pelagic catches in 2008 and 1.17% of small pelagic catches in Applying these percentages to the total volumes of landed small pelagics, we can estimate that Indian mackerel catches in Sri Lanka were around 1,796 tonnes in 2008 and 862 tonnes in Figure 3: Landings of small pelagic species 2003 to 2009 (tonnes) 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 tonnes 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, Source: Sri Lankan fisheries statistics, 2009 Page 5

327 Market prices are tracked on a regular basis for Sardinella in the Colombo wholesale market, and assuming similar prices for all small pelagics of Rs/kg in 2009, landed values of small pelagics in 2009 can be approximated at around Rs 7.3 billion / $63.7 million, and a landed value of Indian mackerel in 2009 at around Rs 86 million / $758,816. Table 5: Small pelagic landings by district (tonnes, 2009) District Shore seine / small pelagic District Shore seine / small pelagic Puttulam 5,840 Kalmunai 7,190 Chilaw 6,980 Batticaloa 15,020 Negombo 11,040 Trincomolee 9,760 Colombo 220 Mallaithivu - Kalutara 3,670 Kilinochi - Galle 4,860 Jaffna 1,910 Matara 4,290 Mannar 710 Tangalla 4,140 Total 73,630 Source: Sri Lankan fisheries statistics, 2009 The socio-economic importance of small pelagic species is thought to be very considerable, given their low cost to consumers meaning that they are one of the most affordable forms of seafood, with a very high nutritional value and being rich in micro-nutrients. While exact figures are not known, small pelagic species contribute very significantly to the total fishing population in the country of around 165,000 people. However, given the very low estimated volumes of Indian mackerel landed in Sri Lanka, its socio-economic importance can be considered as minor. As shown in Table 5, Negombo and Batticaloa are the two districts contributing the greatest proportions of total small pelagic catch to national figures. There has been little work completed on the socio-economic importance of small pelagic fisheries, especially in the North and East of the country, and this remains a major research gap. 1.3 ENVIRONMENT Sri Lanka has a tropical climate with an annual weather cycle divided into two main periods: the south-west monsoon, from May to August, which brings rains to the southern and western coastal regions. The dry season in these regions is from December to March; the north-east monsoon, from October to January, which brings rain to the north and east of the island. This is weaker and shorter-lived than the southwest monsoon. The large-scale oceanic currents around Sri Lanka undergo complete seasonal reversals. Currents to the east of the island are strongest during the north-east monsoon (November- March), and follow a gyre which changes from clockwise to anti-clockwise and back again during the course of the year. Currents to the south of the island flow eastwards from about May to about October, and westwards for the remainder of the year. In general the currents off the east coast are stronger than those off the west coast, while those off the southern coast are among the strongest of all (De Bruin, Russell and Bogusch, 1994). Sri Lanka has four National Parks adjoining coastal waters and a total of 17 other protected areas designated as marine sanctuaries (draft CZMP, 2003). Page 6

328 The incidental catching of marine mammals became a major environmental issue in Sri Lanka in the 1980 s, and a number of investigations conducted during the 1980 s and 1990 s provided estimates of dolphins killed, ranging from 8,000 to nearly 50,000 per annum, mostly by the large-mesh tuna-directed fisheries. The highest estimate of 49,863 made by Leatherwood and Reeves (1989) was later revised to 8,042-11,821 by the same authors, admitting to an error in the original calculations. Five species of dolphins - the Spinner, Striped, Bottlenose, Risso s and Spotted dolphin are the most common among the dolphin by-catch. Among the smaller whales, the Pygmy killer whale, the False Killer whale and the Dwarf Sperm whale have been reported in most studies. Of the seven species of marine turtles found in the world, five are reported from around the seas off Sri Lanka and all five species are also reported to come ashore for nesting. These species the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) are also listed as either endangered or vulnerable in the IUCN Red List. An amendment to the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance in 1972 has provided legal protection to all species of marine turtles in Sri Lanka. However, marine turtles continue to be exploited by coastal communities for their eggs, meat and carapace. There are also some important coral reef areas at various locations around the Sri Lankan coastline. 1.4 SCALE, INTENSITY AND CONSEQUENCES ANALYSIS (SICA) A first step in a Risk Based Framework for assessing data-poor fisheries is to determine the scale and intensity of the fishery. This is then used with the Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) which is provided for Indian mackerel in the main report in order to determine the overall risk to the stock. Figure 4: Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (inc. SICA) PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Gear Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase) Total Productivity Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Gill nets (< 9 cm) Low >80 Beach seine Low >80 The table above shows that the Indian mackerel is highly productive. However the fishery scores poorly in terms of all the elements of susceptibility, mainly due to the small mesh sizes of both the beach seine (PSA score 2.01) and gill net (2.20), as well as the high (beach seine) and medium (gill net) level of encounterability of the gear in the water column. However, because of the species high productivity and low availability of the stock to the fishery (it only operates in the coastal fringes of the stock), this stock is considered low risk overall. Page 7

329 1.5 PEOPLE MET Name Title & Organisation Contact details Location of meeting Dr. Hiran W. Chairman, NARA NARA, Colombo Jayawardene Mrs. Nilmini Director General, NARA, Colombo Diybedanage NARA Mr. Indra MFAR NARA, Colombo Ranasinghe Mr. J. Jayasooriya Statistician, MFAR , NARA, Colombo Ms. Kalyani DFAR , NARA, Colombo Hewapathirana Dr. Champa FAO NARA, Colombo Amarasiri Mr. K Silva Min. of Envt. & Natural Resources NARA, Colombo Dr. Rekha Maldenniya Head, Marine Biological Resource Div., NARA rekhamaldeniya@gmail.co m NARA, Colombo Mr. S. Azmy NARA azmyahmed@yahoo.com NARA, Colombo Mr. P Jayasinghe Research Officer, Prabath_jayasinghe@yahoo NARA, Colombo NARA.com Ms. D. Herath NARA deishini.herath@yahoo.com NARA, Colombo A.A. Abeysinghe Fisheries Resources, vrdfar@gmail.com MARD, Colombo MRAD S.O. Fisheries Inspector, rrdfar@gmail.com MARD, Colombo Premawardana MARD Amidha Abayasiri Legal assistant, amidhaabeysiri@yahoo.co MARD, Colombo MARD m A.J.P.C Deputy Director, MARD, Colombo Wijegoonaboaraan MARD A.H.B. Edinweera Socio-economist, ahsediriweera@fisheries.go MARD, Colombo MARD v.lk Patrick Evans FAO Patrick.evans@fao.org Colombo Gill net fishermen: various individual fishermen Negombo Beach seine fishermen: various individual fishermen Negombo Page 8

330 2 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL For the purpose of this assessment, two main units of assessment are defined as follows: 1. Small mesh gillnet fishery (mesh size 2-4.5cm / inches), used by fibreglass reinforced plastic boats (OFRP), motorized traditional Boats ((MTRB), & nonmotorized traditional boats (NTRB) throughout Sri Lanka; and 2. Beach seines (mesh size <1cm) throughout Sri Lanka. 2.1 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Assessment PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Target spp. status Reference points (not if RBF) Stock rebuilding Interviews NARA/Ministry. Sanders & Dayaratne (1999) There is no recent formal stock assessment or information on which to determine whether the stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low productivity of recruitment overfishing 1. So this PI is scored using the RBF. Using the RBF, the fishery scores very highly for productivity (1.14, see main report). However it scores poorly in terms of all the elements of susceptibility, mainly due to the small mesh sizes of both the beach seine (PSA score 2.01) and gill net (2.20). However, because of the low availability of the stock to the fishery (it only operates in the coastal fringes of the stock), this stock is considered low risk overall. n/a There are no limit or target reference points due to the lack of stock assessment so scored under RFB (see above) Not expected to be rebuilding, and as RBF used to score and no score is given Harvest strategy Harvest Strategy n/a Interviews NARA/Ministry There is no harvest strategy for any small pelagics, either for gillnets or beach seines. There are no input management measures, output management measures, or technical management measures at all. Some research is ongoing on the impact of night fishing by gillnets 1 In 1999 Sanders and Dayaratne suggested that the MSY for Indian mackerel might be in the order of 770 tonnes per year. Page 9

331 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference (important for spawning) and such fishing may be regulated in the future. No information is available on locations of key spawning grounds, nursery areas, etc on which to base a harvest strategy Harvest control rules and tools Interviews NARA/Ministry Information / monitoring Stock Assessment There are no harvest control rules and tools in place at all. Boats must be registered and licensed but there are no restrictions in terms of numbers. Some gear and time restrictions are in place but these are very localised in some areas and motivated by a desire to reduce user conflict. Interviews NARA/Ministry A little bit of work has been done on stock structure e.g. length frequency, but nothing is known on biomass levels (since the Fridtjof Nansen surveys in the 1980 s), migration, etc. More on is known on general stock productivity. Fleet composition is well known. For small scale landing sites data collection is not considered to be very reliable, and data for individual small pelagic species are not recorded separately by the Ministry. Each fisheries inspector division is responsible for recording landings data, based on estimates provided by fishing cooperatives/organisations. Improvements are however underway with training being provided by the Statistics Department to fisheries inspectors on species identification and verification crosschecks. Using the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) this would normally be scored a default Intermediate status. However given the lack information on which to base a stock assessment and the lack of management drivers to demand an assessment of this stock, it is scored as weak. n/a Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance It is assumed that there is one stock of Indian mackerel in Sri Lankan waters, although this is far from certain as genetic tests have not been carried out (Dayaratne, 1998) and the presence of localised sub-populations should not be ruled out. Key weaknesses with respect to the assessment of stock status relate to: A lack of knowledge of stock biomass (unexploited or current levels), and therefore no way to determine any target reference points A complete lack of any sort of control over effort/inputs, outputs/volumes, or the use of specific gears (i.e. no minimum mesh size) Insufficient disaggregation of information collected and recorded on small pelagic species Page 10

332 2.1.3 Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses Specific recommendations to address weaknesses highlighted above, some of which could fall under future support by the BOBLME project include: Expand catch monitoring of small pelagics by NARA to include landing sites in North and North East; NARA to establish a small-pelagic database (similar to the one maintained for large pelagics and used to provided data on tuna and tuna-like species to IOTC); Ministry to break down small pelagic catch reporting to provide information on key small pelagic species, and to continue training of inspectors in species identification and data cross-checking; Preparation of a small pelagic management plan (see below in Section 2.3.3). Note that a recent CIDA/FAO project (completed in 2010) worked to prepare management plans for some inshore species (e.g. lobster, ornamental fish) so there is some institutional capacity present in Sri Lanka, both within NARA and the Ministry, that could be used and further strengthened; A genetic study to be completed to determine whether Indian mackerel found in Sri Lanka is one stock, and whether stocks are shared with India; A study on Indian mackerel migration and other small pelagics both horizontal (e.g. along coast or into other national waters), and vertical (between inshore shallow waters and offshore deeper waters); Training provided to NARA staff on stock assessment methodologies for small pelagic species. Figure 5: Small pelagic fishermen in Negombo Source: Poseidon Page 11

333 2.2 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Unit of Assessment A: Small-mesh gillnets PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other retained species Other retained spp. status Other retained spp. management Other retained spp. Information Dayaratne (1997); Sanders & Dayaratne (1999) The stock status of none of the main bycatch species are known, although yield estimates for all the small pelagic species were made in More work has been done on Amblygaster sirm as the main catch (c. 45%), where CPUE s are known to be declining. Even in the case of A. sirm where there are some data, this is insufficient to demonstrate recruitment impairment with current catches. In 1999 Sanders and Dayaratne suggested there was room for a modest improvement in these fisheries, but the fishery has expanded considerably since then and revised stock assessments are now urgently needed. Interviews NARA/Ministry There is no effective management of the small pelagic gillnet fishery. There are no minimum mesh sizes, harvest strategy or harvest control rules. As a result there are no controls over the size of fish being caught, nor the volumes involved. The smaller mesh sizes in particular have very high catch rates of juvenile fish with an unknown effect upon recruitment. Interviews NARA/Ministry NARA has been collecting samples of small pelagic catches since These detail catch (to species level) as well as gear, fishing location and vessel type data, but takes places at selected landing sites, and is not national in coverage. There is also some limited length-frequency data collection. See also comments above in on Ministry data collection of small pelagic landings. Discard species Discard spp. Status Discard spp. Management Fishermen interviews Discards from this fishery are almost non-existent, limited to occasional puffer fish and jellyfish. The status of these species is unknown, but there is likely to be a degree of post-discard survival. Interviews NARA/Ministry There is no management of discards due to the very low volume Page 12

334 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Discard spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status involved, which constitutes a de facto partial strategy e.g. no discarding. Interviews NARA/Ministry No formal assessment of discard rates and nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. Fishermen interviews; Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002 Due to the small mesh nature of this fishery and its short soak time (<2 hours), this fishery does not interact with any ETP species. It is understood that there is the very occasional sea turtle that gets entangled in the top floats, but these are released alive ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) Habitat Management Interviews NARA/Ministry; Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002 There is no management of discards due to the very low volume involved, which constitutes a de facto partial strategy e.g. no ETP interactions. There are strong regulatory controls preventing the catch of ETP species. A code of conduct to formalise release procedures may be necessary. Interviews NARA/Ministry; Kapurusinghe and Cooray, 2002 No formal assessment of the rate and nature of ETP interactions has been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. Fishermen interviews. Interviews NARA/Ministry This is purely a surface fishery with a very limited interaction with the substrate. There may be the occasional contact when fishing in shallow waters, but this is intermittent and temporary. Bottom trawling for small pelagics is banned. Interviews NARA/Ministry There is no management of habitat interactions in this fishery as these are rare, temporary and low impact. However further spatial management may be appropriate to ensure that larger nets do not touch the bottom and to minimise gear conflicts and thus minimise gear loss. There is however a regulatory ban on the use of gill nets in Page 13

335 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Habitat Information Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information coral reef areas. Interviews NARA/Ministry Outside of the coral reef areas there is little information on the nature of marine habitats and their spatial distribution. Given the shallow nature of the fishing areas, this knowledge could be improved and any necessary spatial measures e.g. closure of shallow, rocky substrates, be considered. Haputhantri et al, This fishery has no minimum mesh size and thus has a high potential to disrupt recruitment, esp. give the current rate of (uncontrolled) expansion. It catches a wide variety of pelagic and epi-pelagic species at a number of trophic levels (e.g. from planktivorous scobrids to piscivorous barracuda and carangids). Interviews NARA/Ministry There is a total lack of control over this fishery in terms of catch selectivity and effort. Given its focus on a wide range of both prey and predator species this is of concern, although any ecosystem impact is yet to be proven. Haputhantri et al, 2008 There is little information on the ecological impact of this fishery, although preliminary EcoPath modelling has been conducted and has focused upon the impacts of the coastal small-mesh gillnet fishery Further information on the role of small pelagics in general, and key species such as Amblygaster in particular, would appear warranted Unit of Assessment B: Beach seines PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained species Retained spp. status Dayaratne (1997); Sanders & Dayaratne (1999) This gear has no selectivity and thus has a wide range of catch in terms of both species numbers and sizes. The stock status of all the main retained bycatch species are unknown, although yield estimates for all the small pelagic species were made in More work has been done on Amblygaster sirm as an important catch component, where CPUE s are known to be declining. Even in the case of A. sirm where there are some data, this is insufficient to demonstrate recruitment Page 14

336 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Retained spp. management Retained spp. Information impairment with current catches. In 1999 Sanders and Dayaratne suggested there was room for a modest improvement in these fisheries, but the fishery has expanded considerable since then and revised stock assessments are now urgently needed. Interviews NARA/Ministry There is no effective management of the beach seine fishery apart from a restriction on seining sites, based on long-established traditional rights. There are no minimum mesh sizes, harvest strategy or harvest control rules. As a result there are no controls over the size of fish being caught, nor the volumes involved. This gear has very high catch rates of juvenile fish with an unknown effect upon recruitment. Interviews NARA/Ministry NARA has been collecting samples of small pelagic catches since These detail catch (to species level) as well as gear, fishing location and vessel type data. There is some limited length-frequency data collection. Discard species Discard spp. Status Discard spp. Management Discard spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status Fishermen interviews Discards from this fishery are almost non-existent as everything is utilised for either human consumption or reduction into fishmeal discards are therefore limited to the occasional jellyfish. Interviews NARA/Ministry There is no management of discards due to the very low volume involved, which constitutes a de facto partial strategy e.g. no discarding. Interviews NARA/Ministry No formal assessment of discard rates and their nature have been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. Fishermen interviews Due to the inshore nature of this fishery, this fishery does not interact with any ETP species. It is understood that there is the very occasional sea turtle that gets trapped in the seine, but these are released alive with no mortality due to the very short time the net is in the water, and Page 15

337 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) Habitat Management Habitat Information Ecosystems Ecosystem Status regulations which prevent the catching of turtles. Interviews NARA/Ministry There is no management of discards due to the very low volume involved, which constitutes a de facto partial strategy e.g. no ETP interactions. There are strong regulatory controls preventing the catch of ETP species. A code of conduct to formalise release procedures may be necessary. Interviews NARA/Ministry No formal assessment of the rate and nature of ETP interactions has been carried out, mainly due to the very low level involved. An observer programme is necessary to verify these very low rates and to develop a risk-based sampling programme. Fishermen interviews This fishery is undertaken entirely in sandy / muddy habitats without any complex rocks or coral (which would render the gear unusable). There areas are highly dynamic (much of it is within or near to the surf zone) and thus it likely to cause little or very short-lived changes to the habitat. It should be noted that beach seine sites have remained fixed for many years at traditional locations and are not used in sensitive habitat areas. Interviews NARA/Ministry There is no management of habitat interactions in this fishery as these are rare, temporary and low impact. The one exception is that there is a legal prohibition to operate in coral reef areas in order to protect this important habitat. Interviews NARA/Ministry Outside of the coral reef areas there is little information on the nature of marine habitats and their spatial distribution. Haputhantri et al, 2008 This fishery has no minimum mesh size and thus has a high potential to disrupt recruitment. It catches a wide variety of pelagic and epi-pelagic species at a number of trophic levels (e.g. from planktivorous scobrids to piscivorous barracuda and carangids). Page 16

338 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Ecosystem Management Interviews NARA/Ministry There is a total lack of control over this fishery in terms of catch selectivity. Given its focus on a wide range of both prey and predator species this is of concern, although any ecosystem impact is yet to be proven Ecosystem Information Haputhantri et al, 2008 There is little information on the ecological impact of this fishery, although preliminary EcoPath modelling has been conducted and have focused upon the impacts of the coastal small-mesh gillnet fishery Further information on the role of small pelagics in general, and key species such as Amblygaster, would appear warranted. Figure 6: Beach seine, Beruwela Source: Deishini Herath, NARA Key Weaknesses with Current P2 Performance Both the small mesh gill net fishery and the beach seine fishery perform relatively well in terms of the impacts on discard, habitats, and ETP species. Due to the minimal reported interactions with ETPs, and habitats, and zero discards, there is therefore no specific management of such issues, which is quite understandable. However, some specific research/observation should be carried out to provide information to verify/document the lack of impacts. The key area of weakness remains the lack of information and management of retained species (actually the target catch in this case). Page 17

339 2.2.4 Key Recommendations to Address P2 Performance Weaknesses Specific recommendations to address the weaknesses highlighted above are those outlined in section above, and some specific observation/monitoring of discard, habitat and ETP interactions/impacts to document and provide an empirical basis for the assumption and widely stated view that there are few issues of concern. Page 18

340 2.3 PRINCIPLE 3: FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Assessment PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Governance and policy Legal Framework Consultation, roles and responsibilities Stakeholder meetings; MFAR, 1996; MFAR, 2004 and subsidiary regulations; NARA/Ministry interviews. Fisheries Ordinance 1940 contains detailed provisions to deal with disputes. Sections 20 and 20A, provide regulations to appoint a Committee of Inquiry or a Commissioner to deal with fishing disputes. Many area-specific regulations have resulted from this process. Legal and customary rights are also strongly provided for in policy, legislation and in the management system more generally e.g. on beach seining by traditional operators/communities, reference to protecting the rights of traditional fishers in coastal fisheries in the policy. Fisheries legislation provides for the codification of many community management rules through local by-laws and regulations, and the provision for management by fisheries committees. The Fisheries Act is under revision to strengthen it further with regards to coherence with international obligations, increased sanctions, and even wider stakeholder involvement. However, there is no legal framework or regulations covering gillnet fisheries, with the exception of a prohibition to operate in coral reef areas. NARA/Ministry interviews. Macfadyen, G., Cacaud, P., & Kuemlangan, B. (2005). Roles and responsibilities in the management process are defined in law with respect to the functions of NARA, the Ministry, and the Department of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources (DFAR). General principles of participation are included in fisheries policy, and there is a Constitutional provision for decentralisation. Co-management is also fostered by important non-fisheries legislation relating to coastal conservation. Fishermen s cooperative societies can provide the necessary focus within a community on which a management system could be based. The number of cooperative societies, their membership and financial resources (both internally generated and loans) have greatly increased in recent years. A co-management division in DFAR supporting consultation processes does not yet explicitly address small-pelagic issues, but could do so, although remains rather weak in terms of institutional capacity. The Coast Conservation Act, 1981 (makes provisions for the identification of special coastal areas needing management (under Special Area Management process) and the establishment of management committees with the participation of all stakeholders, including fishers. Page 19

341 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Long-term Objectives NARA/Ministry interviews. MAFR, 2004; MAFR, 2006a Policy refers to current and future generations, implying long-term objectives. The policy also requires that a precautionary approach is followed in the management of marine resources. Of concern is a strong emphasis in policy on production increases, but the 10yr development framework explicitly recognises that though there appears to be scope for increasing production in the coastal sub-sector, in view of the uncertain resource picture it is necessary to adopt a "precautionary approach" in aiming at production increases. Other policy content requires promoting the principles of responsible fisheries, stock assessments, cooperation with regional fishery management organisations and international conventions Incentives NARA/Ministry interviews. Fishermen interviews Fishery specific management Fishery Objectives Decision making processes Compliance & Enforcement Fisheries sector subsidies are not in place in Sri Lanka, having been phased out in recent years. There is no direct or indirect support for the catching sector towards fuel costs, vessel construction, or other subsidies typically thought to contribute to over-capacity in fishing fleets. However there is also no use of positive incentives to provide a stimulus for greater sustainability. NARA/Ministry interviews. MAFR, 2006b There are currently no objectives at all relating specifically to either small pelagic fisheries or Indian mackerel in particular. Objectives consistent with sustainability are not even implicit given that there are no management regulations at all aimed at regulating effort or catches in the small pelagic fishery. There are not even any minimum mesh sizes in operation. NARA/Ministry interviews There is no fishery-specific management system for small pelagic fisheries in Sri Lanka, or for Indian mackerel in particular, and no decision making processes and strategies to achieve any objectives. NARA/Ministry interviews It could be argued that since there are no management measures imposed on small pelagic fisheries, there is no need for any control and enforcement or full compliance with regulations. However, enforcement more generally in Sri Lanka of fisheries regulations is considered to be very weak. This is in part due to the historical focus of the Coastguard on security issues rather than fisheries enforcement, and in part due to the fact that fisheries inspectors serve a dual function with regards to both land-based enforcement activities, and data collection and service Page 20

342 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference provision to the fishing community. Budgets for enforcement activities are not sufficient. More active engagement of the Coastguard in fisheries issues might be expected to improve following the end of the war. However enforcement activities in general would be much improved if a documented risk-based MCS plan was prepared annually focussing on locations, seasons, and stakeholders felt to be of special concern in terms of compliance. Such a plan could also help to articulate roles and responsibilities of those engaged in enforcement activities Research Plan NARA/Ministry interviews Performance Evaluation Some research on small pelagic species is completed by NARA in the form of ongoing data collection on small pelagic species, and some specific studies have been completed over the years, but none very recently. The NARA collection programme generates information on catches, and CPUE, by fishing gear and area. NARA also formulates annual budgets which in effect articulate its focus on different activities for the coming year. However little other research takes place on small-pelagic species, and there is no defined small pelagic research plan. Considerable gaps in knowledge remain with respect to small pelagic species in general, and to Indian mackerel in particular, with no clear plan specified to address them. NARA/Ministry interviews Again, it could be argued that there is no need for a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the small pelagic management system since there is no system in place. But there is no mechanism, either internal or external, in place to evaluate and determine whether a management system for small pelagic species is necessary. Page 21

343 2.3.2 Key Weaknesses with Current P3 Performance The overarching governance and policy framework, in terms of the legal framework, provision for the protection of community rights, stakeholder participation, etc is generally quite strong in Sri Lanka, and provides ample opportunity and an enabling framework for successful fisheries-specific management. However fishery-specific management is totally lacking in the country, both for small pelagic species in general, and for Indian mackerel in particular. This is rather surprising given the high socio-economic importance of small pelagic fisheries in terms of both livelihoods and food security. In addition, even in the event that such a framework was in place in terms of research and consultative processes informing the specification of management decisions and rules, concerns would still certainly remain over fisheries control and enforcement Key Recommendations to Address P3 Performance Weaknesses The co-management division in the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources provides a potential institutional mechanism to specify and monitor a fisheries-specific management system, based on a small-scale fisheries management plan. Such a plan could be informed by a study of the socio-economic importance of small pelagics, particularly in the North and North East of the country now that the civil war has finished. The plan could include information and requirements with regard to the following: An overall vision and objectives; The species to be covered by the plan; The current status of stocks; The extent to which scientific information is available on which to base the management plan, and the extent to which the plan will have to rely on a risk-based framework and the precautionary approach; The stakeholders involved in the fishery (who they are, where they are, what their interests are); Information on the socio-economic/financial status/importance of the fishery; Any relevant cooperation and coherence with India (Tamil Nadu state in particular) on issues related to shared stocks; Specific management measures agreed by stakeholders (and informed by local knowledge) related to target catches, as well as to retained bycatch, discards, habitats, and ecosystems; and Compliance and enforcement mechanisms (formal and self-regulatory). Page 22

344 2.4 SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL The table below provides a summary of the performance for Indian mackerel in Sri Lanka Table 6: Summary performance table for Indian Mackerel in Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Principle 1: Stock status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Unit of Assessment Outcome Harvest strategy Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific mang Spp Gear Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding ifnecessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discardsstatus Discards management Discards info / monitoring ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation I. mackerel Small mesh gillnet 2 0 * I. mackerel Beach seine 2 0 * Page 23

345 Annex 1: References CZMP (2003). Revised Coastal Zone Management Plan (Draft), Sri Lanka, Coast Conservation Department, Colombo, Sri Lanka Dayaratne, P. (1984). Fisheries biology of small Pelagic fish in the West Coast of Sri Lanka. PhD Thesis. University of Bergen, Norway. Dayaratne, P. (1997). Review of resource assessment information on small pelagics in coastal waters of Sri Lanka. NARA Internal Publication.10 pp. Dayaratne, P. and K.P. Sivakumaran (1996). Bio-socio economics study of small pelagic fisheries along the South West coast of Sri Lanka. BOBP/WP/96.FAO Bay of Bengal project. Madras, India Dayaratne, P. and W.P.N. Karunasinghe (1992). Coastal fishery resource utilization by the small mesh gillnet fishery along the western and South coast of Sri Lanka. Paper presented at The Asian Fisheries Forum De Bruin, G. H. P., B. C. Russell and A. Bogusch (1994). The marine fishery resources of Sri Lanka. FAO, Rome, Italy. 400 pp. 224 pl. Fernando, P.A.T. (2001). A comprehensive analysis of beach seine fishery in the NW and S regions of Sri Lanka. Master of Philosophy, Fernando, P.A.T. (2004). Population dynamics of Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta in northwestern coastal waters of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka Journal of Aquatic sciences 9: Haputhantri, S.S.K., M.C.S. Villanueva & J. Moreau (2008). Trophic interactions in the coastal ecosystem of Sri Lanka: An ECOPATH preliminary approach. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. January 2008, Volume 76, Issue 2, Pages Joseph, L. (undated). National Report of Sri Lanka on the Formulation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Plan for the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Programme. Unpublished report to the BOBLME Project Kapurusinghe, T. & Cooray, R. (2002). Marine turtle bycatch in Sri Lanka: Survey report. Panadura, Sri Lanka, Turtle Conservation Project (TCP). Karunasinghe, W.P.N. and M. Fonseka (1985). A preliminary analysis of small mesh gillnet fishery in the inshore waters of Sri Lanka. NARA Journal. 32: Karunasinghe, W.P.N. and P. Dayaratne (1997). Species composition and abundance in the small mesh gillnet fishery carried out during 1995/1996 period. Paper presented 3rd annual sessions of SLAFAR. June Leatherwood, S. and R. R. Reeves ( 1989). Marine Mammal Research and Conservation in Sri Lanka, Mar. mammal Tech. Report No. 1, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Macfadyen, G., Cacaud, P., & Kuemlangan, B. (2005). Policy and legislative frameworks for co-management: Background paper for a workshop on mainstreaming fisheries comanagement, held in Cambodia, 9th-12th August Madduma Bandara, C. M. (1989). A survey of the coastal zone of Sri Lanka. Coast Conservation Department, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 116 pp. 24

346 Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (1996). The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act (Act No. 2 of 1996). Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (2004). Fisheries and aquatic resources (Amendment) Act, No. 4 of 2004 Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (2006a). Ten year development policy framework of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources sector Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (2006b). The National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Policy (2006) Sanders. M.J. & P. Dayaratne (1999). Yield assessment for the small pelagics fishery occurring along the northwest, west and south costs of Sri Lanka. Asian Fisheries Science 12:

347 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Appendix J: Country Report Thailand

348 Assessments of the Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and the Hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha) fisheries in the BOBLME countries Country Report: Thailand Undertaken by 711-REG

349 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION PEOPLE MET MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS, CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Purse seine and Trawl fishery Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Purse seine Trawl fishery Key Weaknesses with Current Ecosystem Management Performance Key Recommendations to Address Ecosystem Performance Weaknesses FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Key Weaknesses with Current Management Performance Key Recommendations to Address Management Weaknesses SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL Appendices APPENDIX A: REFERENCES Figures FIGURE 1 AREA OF THAILAND WITHIN THE BOBLME AREA... 1 FIGURE 2 TOTAL CATCH OF INDIAN MACKEREL IN THE ANDAMAN SEA FIGURE 3 NUMBER OF FISHING VESSELS REGISTERED IN ANDAMAN SEA BY MAIN GEAR TYPE... 3 FIGURE 4 ANNUAL VARIATION OF CATCH AND CPUE OF INDIAN MACKEREL IN THE ANDAMAN SEA PURSE SEINE FLEET FIGURE 5 AVERAGE CATCH PROFILE FOR PURSE SEINERS IN THE ANDAMAN SEA ( )... 5 FIGURE 6 AVERAGE CATCH PROFILE FOR TRAWLERS IN THE ANDAMAN SEA ( )... 5 FIGURE 7 SEASONALITY OF INDIAN MACKEREL CATCHES BY PURSE SEINE IN THE ANDAMAN SEA... 6 Tables TABLE 1 CATCHES, MAXIMUM SUSTAINABLE YIELD (MSY) AND OPTIMUM EFFORT (F OPT ) OF IMPORTANT PELAGIC SPECIES ALONG THE ANDAMAN SEA... 6 TABLE 2: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR INDIAN MACKEREL... 9 TABLE 3: PRODUCTIVITY SUSCEPTIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR OTHER RETAINED SPECIES TABLE 4: SUMMARY PERFORMANCE TABLE FOR INDIAN MACKEREL IN THAILAND... 26

350 Assessments of the Indian mackerel and hilsa shad fisheries in the Bay of Bengal Acronyms APFIC ASEAN ASRI BOBLME CBFM CCRF CHARM COFI CPUE CREP DoF EAF(M) EU F FAD FAO GT IOTC IPOA IUU KG M MCS MEY MFRDB MM MoF MoNRE MPA MSY MT NGO RBFM RFB RFMO TAC TED TURF UNEP Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission Association of Southeast Asian Nations Andaman Sea Research Institute Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Community Based Fisheries Management Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Coastal Habitats and Aquatic Resource Management (Project) Committee on Fisheries Catch per Unit of Effort Coastal Resources and Environmental Profile Department of Fisheries Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (Management) European Union Fishing effort Fish aggregating device Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Gross tonnage Indian Ocean Tuna Commission International Plan of Action Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing) Kilogrammes Metres Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Maximum Economic Yield Marine Fisheries Research and Development Bureau Millimeters Ministry of Fisheries Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment Marine Protected Area Maximum Sustainable Yield Metric Tons Non Governmental Organization Rights Based Fisheries Management Regional Fisheries Body Regional Fisheries Management Organization Total Allowable Catch Turtle Exclusion Device Territorial use rights in fisheries United Nations Environment Program

351 1 OVERVIEW 1.1 INTRODUCTION Thailand is one of the world s leading marine capture fisheries producers, harvesting 2,457,184t of fish in 2008, valued at US$2.25 billion, with 40% being taken by Thailand s fleet fishing outside its EEZ. Thailand s offshore freezer trawler and purse seiner fleet fish in international waters and in the EEZs of other Bay of Bengal states. Thailand s Andaman Sea coast is adjacent to the Bay of Bengal (Figure 1). The country s fishing fleet and landings are divided between here and the Gulf of Thailand. Ranong is a hub for landings by fleets fishing in the Andaman Sea and in Myanmar, with the port also receiving many transhipments from other Bay of Bengal states. Approximately a third of the catch from within Thailand s EEZ is from the Andaman Sea area. By volume, the main species harvested include threadfin bream, Indo-Pacific mackerel, coastal tunas, bigeye, snapper, squids, sardines, round scads and anchovies. Figure 1 Area of Thailand within the BOBLME area Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) is the one of major target species of marine fisheries along the Andaman Sea coast of Thailand. Purse seine is the main fishing gear used, with demersal trawl and other gears also catching a small proportion of the total catch of this species. Page 1

352 Interviewees suggest hilsa shad was previously an important fishery, but that this species was fished out some years ago. The MoF does however report that new small scale hilsa fisheries (catching hilsa using gill nets between October and February) have been identified since 2006 and contribute a total of approximately 17 tonnes per annum in the following areas: 1. Panga Bay (100 families, 1 vessel per family, 50kg per community per day therefore estimate 7.5t caught) 2. Cape Lamb Sac (70 families, 5.25t) 3. Ko Hang and Ko Pu islands (60 families, 4.5t) Further information on these fisheries is not available. Therefore this report focuses on Indian Mackerel, but the above indicates that hilsha-related work is also of relevance to Thailand. 1.2 PEOPLE MET Name Title and Organization Contact details Praulia Chantawong Professor Wannakiat Thubthimsang San Srinand Lt. Apichat Somrith Head of Andaman Sea Research Institute (ASRI) Director of Phuket Marine Biological Center Director of Marine Research and Fishery Conservation Captain of Fishery Patrol Vessel nootmorn@yahoo.com Location of meeting Phuket Phuket Bangkok Bangkok 1.3 MAIN FLEETS AND GEARS, CURRENT EFFORT, CATCHES (VOLUME & VALUE) AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE The total catch of Indian Mackerel in the Andaman Sea has averaged around 20,000t per annum over the past 10 years, but as Figure 2 indicates, the total has fluctuated, and since a peak of nearly 28,000t in 2005, landings have declined. Page 2

353 Figure 2 Total catch of Indian Mackerel in the Andaman Sea Source: ASRI Around 74% of this catch was from the purse seine fleet, with 25% from trawlers and 1% coming from other gears. The number of vessels has been declining in recent years. Figure 3 Number of fishing vessels registered in Andaman Sea by main gear type Source: ASRI Fisheries statistics suggest between 1997 and 2007, the number of purse seiners registered on the western coast of Thailand grew from 192 in 1998 to 337 in 2002, before dropping to 212 vessels by The ASRI study of 2007 identified that there were 415 purse seiners fishing in the Andaman Sea, with the seasonal movement of vessels from the Gulf of Thailand almost doubling the fleet of vessels registered on the West Coast in 2007 (DOF, 2009). The purse seiners use a net length 700-1,300m, depth m with mesh size 25mm operated with 1-3 day/trip, about 24 day/month. The vessels range in length from 14 to 27m and use engines of 250 to 300hp. Purse seine fisheries operate throughout the year, with high activity in the northeast monsoon season period (October-March), at a depth of between m and generally on substrate sandy-clay sea bed along Andaman Sea Coast. Page 3

354 For Indian mackerel and sardine, the fishing grounds are mainly located within the depth range of 30-70m (Chantawong, 2008). The main landing ports of Indian mackerel in Thailand are Ranong, Phang-nga, Phuket, Krabi, Trang and Satun. Indian mackerel represented 15.53% of total purse seine catch in 2007, with CPUE estimated at kg/day. The annual production and CPUE for the Indian mackerel purse seine fishery peaked at 21,654 tonnes in 1998, and has since declined along with the overall catch (Figure 4). Figure 4 Annual variation of catch and CPUE of Indian Mackerel in the Andaman Sea purse seine fleet , , Catch (tones) 15,000 10,000 CPUE (kg/day) , Catch (metric tonnes) CPUE (kg/day) Source:ASRI Figure 5 and Figure 6 show that the catch from trawlers and purse seiners consists of a wide variety of species. Trawl catches in particular are made up of very many species (over 50 species recorded) with many, including Indian Mackerel, making up less than 1% of the catch. Figure 6 presents only species that account for more than 1% of the catch. Page 4

355 Figure 5 Average catch profile for purse seiners in the Andaman Sea ( ) Source:ASRI Figure 6 Average catch profile for trawlers in the Andaman Sea ( ) Source: ASRI Monthly production fluctuates and shows high values of catch during early Northeast monsoon season (October-December 1,910, 1,993 and 1,343 tonnes respectively per month), while during the Southwest monsoon season, the catch shows lower values (Figure 7). Indian mackerel along the Andaman Sea coast spawns in 2 main spawning phases: during December-March and during August-September. The average size at first maturity of males and females were and cm (smallest size were and cm) respectively, while sex ratio of male:female was 1:1.31 (Krajangdara et al., 2007.) Page 5

356 Figure 7 Seasonality of Indian mackerel catches by purse seine in the Andaman Sea 2,500 2,000 Catch (tonnes) 1,500 1, Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source:ASRI In 1998 Chullasorn (reported in Chantawong, 1998) reviewed landings data between for key pelagic resources and identified average catch levels exceeded MSY estimates for all these resources (Table 1). Table 1 Catches, Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and optimum effort (F opt ) of important pelagic species along the Andaman Sea Species Catch from 1984 to 1995 (mt) Indo-Pacific mackerel Average Catch (mt) MSY (mt) Catch as % of MSY F opt (days) 12,044 66,833 30,553 23, % 70,059 Round scads 2,464 35,994 17,046 15, % 74,680 Small tunas 4,695 12,611 14,982 8, % 71,104 Sardines 19,874 54,849 31,945 31, % 42,119 Pelagic fish 56, , , , % 79,591 Source: (Chullasorn, 1998) More recently a Length Based Thompson and Bell Analysis was applied by Sumontha et al (2010) to the available catch and relative effort for Indian mackerel. The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for Indian Mackerel was 12,999 tonnes at the F-factor of 0.7 and the maximum sustainable economics yield (MEY) was million baht at the F-factor of 0.4. In 2007, the catch and value of the Indian mackerel were 12,805 tonnes and 433 million baht which over 30% of the MSY and over 60% of the MEY (Sumontha et al., 2010). Page 6

357 1.4 ENVIRONMENT The state of Thailand s environment is reported in ASEAN s Fourth State of Environment Report, Thailand s mangrove areas reduced from 280,000ha to 240,000ha between 1980 and A comprehensive survey of coral reefs at 169 sites in the Andaman Sea was undertaken from 1995 to 1998 to assess reef health using an indicator of the ratio of live and dead coral cover (CREP, 2008). In this assessment 5% of coral reefs where in excellent condition, 12% good, the majority (33%) fair, 27% poor and 23% in very poor condition. Hutomo et al (2009) report that most of the coral reefs in the Andaman Sea have degraded to poor or very poor condition due to natural causes, such as storms that severely damaged the Adang-Rawi Islands in 1986, the crown-of-thorn starfish epidemic in several areas and the 2004 Tsunami. Coral bleaching has also been reported during due to sea temperature rise as a result of global warming. Human impacts are mainly from mining related sedimentation and harmful tourism activities, but also destructive fishing such as blasting, impact of lost nets and fish traps. Thailand waters support a diverse community of seagrass beds with about 12 species and 7 genera. The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources conducted a survey and assessment of seagrass beds in In the Andaman Sea, the most abundant seagrass beds are in Nai Yang National Park, Phuket Province and within the National Park, they are not disturbed by human activities. However, sedimentation from mining activities does occur within Phuket Province which could impact seagrass beds. It is also noted that fisheries in the seagrass beds zone in Krabi Province include shrimp trawl fisheries. The seagrass beds are in very coastal shallow locations and so any interaction will be from small boats. Associated with the seagrass beds are Dugong Dugong dugon populations. Recent estimates of dugong numbers in the Andaman Sea totaled 200, with 150 of these found in Trang Province (CREP, 2009). Major threats include incidental capture by fishing gear, predominately set and drift gill nets. Five species of turtle are reported within Thai waters: : green turtle Chelonia mydas, hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate, leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea, loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta and olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea. The species distribution around Thailand is broadly understood, with highest frequency of recordings around Phuket Province. The numbers of eggs and nesting sites have drastically declined over the past decade with main threats listed as habitat destruction and collection, sale and consumption of turtle eggs. From 2000 to 2006 annual surveys of nesting sites found over 400 turtle nests on Taimuang Beach, Lampi-Taiuang National Park and Phang-Nga Province. However, the number has since declined to sea turtle nests. This decrease has led to a number of efforts to protect the habitat in several ways including zoning in marine parks, rehabilitation and enforcement of laws including the Fishery Act 1947 and Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act The effectiveness of these measures and levels of compliance and enforcement are unknown. Page 7

358 Whale sharks became protected on 28 th march 2000 and hunting or killing is strictly prohibited. In the Andaman Sea the whale shark can be found at the Richelieu Rock in Phang Nga Province and at the Purple Rock and Red Rock in Krabi Province. At present the number of whale sharks is considered to be low. Other protected species within the Andaman Sea include many species of whales and dolphins. Thailand established 23 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), part of a 56% increase in the sea area covered by MPAs since 1995 (ASEAN, 2009). However the extent to which resources are protected in law and effectively managed in those MPAs is unknown. ASEAN notes that Some of the reasons for the slow progress in managing the coastal and marine environment are the lack of irrefutable and clear information about the nature and extent of the problems affecting the coastal and marine environments; legal and institutional complexities; non-involvement of local communities; and weak multi-sectoral cooperation (ASEAN, 2009). Significant causes of marine and coastal resources deteriorations are destruction of breeding grounds and natural buffer zone, use of natural resources beyond carrying capacity, accumulation of solid wastes on beaches and intrusion of coastal developments. Concerned agencies have implemented several projects and activities in an attempt to solve these problems. Those projects and activities include: rehabilitation of mangrove forests; survey the status and locate conservation and use zones of coral reef resources; survey and provide protected areas for sea-grass and manatees (MONE, 2005). The Policy and Strategy of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (MONRE) received Cabinet approval on 18 March. It vision is to: Return the natural environment to the Thai society and work towards the inclusion of natural resources and the environment in the national agenda as they provide the basis for social and economic development. Support proactive integration of the administrative management of natural resources, environmental protection, and biological diversity, based on the principles of public participation and good governance. A number of approaches and actions are identified in order to deliver this vision. 1.5 RISK ASSESSMENT A number of population parameters have been estimated for Indian Mackerel in the Andaman Sea. While there is a good level of stock information compared to other areas in the BOBLME region, these estimates are based on a limited data set that is five years old. Therefore it is useful to consider a risk assessment to consider the scale and intensity of the fishery in relation to the target species. This is presented in a Productivity / Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) in order to determine the overall risk to the stock from fishing. More detail on the PSA for Indian mackerel is provided in the main report. A summary of the PSA for Indian mackerel is provided in Table 2. Page 8

359 Table 2: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for Indian Mackerel Species Indian Mackerel Source: Poseidon Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (Fishbase) Total Productivity Gear Purse seine High <60 Btm Otter trawl High <60 Gill nets Low >80 Based on the PSA assessment, Indian mackerel is shown to be highly productive with a minimum population doubling time less than 15 months (Fishbase, 2010). Indian mackerel is highly susceptible to being caught by the purse seine and trawl fleets. Vessels deploying these gears are likely to overlap >30% of the natural distribution of Indian mackerel, as well as having a high overlap with the habitat and depth range inhabited by this species. Due to the mesh sizes of these gears, they have a low selectivity in that most fish encountered will be captured. From a stock status perspective, both purse seine and trawl fisheries are considered to be high risk to Indian mackerel. The gillnet fishery however, is predominately carried out in the coastal areas and so has a lower risk score based on availability and encounterability attributes. While selectivity scores poorly due to the small mesh sizes compared to the fish length, overall the impact of this small scale fishery on the stock is considered low risk. A PSA has also been undertaken for other species that are likely to be captured in conjunction with the small pelagic fishery, including Indo Pacific mackerel and tuna species. These results are presented in Table 3. Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Page 9

360 Table 3: Productivity Susceptibility Analysis for other retained species Species Indopacific mackerel Skipjack tuna Longtail tuna Frigate tuna Bigeye tuna Bullet tuna Eastern little tuna Yellowfin tuna Source: Poseidon Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity PSA Productivity Susceptibility PSA Scores Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (Fishbase) Total Productivity Gear Purse seine Med Btm Otter trawl Med Gill nets Low >80 Purse seine Med Purse seine High <60 Purse seine High <60 Purse seine Med Purse seine High <60 Purse seine High <60 Purse seine High <60 Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Total (multiplicative) PSA Score Risk Category MSC score Page 10

361 2 FISHERIES ASSESSMENTS INDIAN MACKEREL For the purpose of this assessment, two units of assessment are identified as follows: Purse seine vessels targeting small pelagic species within Thailand EEZ waters with nets of mesh size 1 inch. Bottom otter trawl vessels targeting demersal finfish and shrimps, taking Indian mackerel as a bycatch, operating within Thailand EEX waters with nets of mesh size 1 inch. 2.1 PRINCIPLE 1: STOCK STATUS Purse seine and Trawl fishery PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Outcome Target spp. status ASRI, pers. comm. BOBLME Stock assessment workshop, 2010 N. Therananthakul Pers. Com catch (12,805 t) is less than that indicated for MSY (12,999 t) however declining trend in catches over the last 10 years and estimates suggest that catch is 30% over MSY (60% over MEY) Reference points (not if RBF) Stock rebuilding Harvest strategy Harvest Strategy It is not known whether the stock is a single stock or there are separate stocks that Thailand shares with Malaysia and Myanmar. Genetic studies are needed to determine this. No target reference points - SSB is not quoted anywhere and appears to be unknown. Thompson and Bell analysis has been used to estimate MSY and MEY, but these are not set as limit or target reference points in management of the stock. No stock rebuilding strategies identified Management is effort-based (relating to vessels rather than specific stocks) spatial and temporal closures are used to shift effort (not reduce it) and there are limits on licenses for trawlers & push nets. No license limits for purse seine. Therefore there is not really a harvest strategy relating to the stock, Page 11

362 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Harvest control rules and tools Information / monitoring Stock Assessment (not if RBF) and no evidence it is achieving any stated objectives. There are no harvest control rules There are good levels of information and data collated, but these do not feed into direct management of the stock through output measures, rather management of the fleet (inputs). There remain significant gaps e.g. knowledge of extent of stock (one or more than one stock), and estimates of SSB are lacking to determine the level at which recruitment would be impaired. There is however regular collection of information from: log books (newly introduced for purposes of exporting to the EU) Market sampling (10% from each type of fishing gear see stats) for total landings and establishing length/weight Interviews with fishermen by staff at ASRC ASRI As indicated earlier, a number of population parameters have been calculated for this species, but these are based on a single research project rather than regular assessment Key Weaknesses with Current P1 Performance There is no regular assessment of spawning stock biomass (SSB) on which to base stock management. It is not known whether the stock is a single stock or whether there are distinct sub-stocks along the Andaman Sea coast. A CPUE model has been used to estimate that fishing mortality is approximately 30% above MSY, despite reduced numbers of vessels in the last 5 years. As Chantawong (2008) notes: Information on spawning grounds, season, size at first maturity, life span, food and feeding, growth and mortalities of many species is still lacking. Information on stock identification through various means (morphometric, meristics, DNA analysis and tagging) for a number of important pelagic [does not exist]. A basic requirement in stock assessment is time series analysis of catch and effort and size composition by species. Although the statistics, particularly catch by species and/or group of species and its associated effort are available, its reliability is still questionable. Page 12

363 2.1.3 Key Recommendations to Address P1 Performance Weaknesses Research on population dynamics including a genetic component to establish stock extent and composition; Development of fishery-specific harvest control strategy and implementation of harvest control rules, based on scientific evidence of stock status; and Collaboration with neighboring countries on the above. should research show shared stocks. Page 13

364 2.2 PRINCIPLE 2: ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS Purse seine PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other Retained species Retained spp. Status Retained spp. management Retained spp. Information Discards Discard spp. Status Discard spp. Management Chantawong, 2008 Main retained species associated with the small pelagic fishery are Indo-Pacific mackerel (Rastrelliger brachysoma), Indian mackerel (R. kanagurta), round scads ( Decapterus maruadsi, D. macrosoma and D. macarellrus) and small tunas (Thunnus tonggol, Euthynnus affinis, Auxis thazard, Katsuwonus pelamis and Sarda orientalis). Similar levels of information are available for indo-pacific mackerel as for Indian mackerel. The status of Indo-Pacific mackerel is known and MSY is estimated to be 23,765 mt and average annual catch rates of 30,553 mt which is 28% over MSY. For this reason an intermediate score is appropriate. Thailand operates seasonal closed areas in inshore locations, specifically to protect spawning periods for a combination of small pelagic species. The breeding of Indo Pacific mackerel have been protected by temporal closure of the Phang-nga Bay during 15 April to 15 June, since This has allowed an intermediate level of management to be achieved. There are also closed areas to protect coral reef systems which act to indirectly protect fish in these areas. There are no other specific strategies in place for minimization of bycatch of other retained species and in particular the level of juvenile landings may become a concern for these species and their continued recruitment. It is understood that there is no discarding in the purse seine fishery, and the good information that is available on landed catch represents good levels of information on retained species. There are no discards in the purse seine fishery this is evidenced by the large size range in landings. Small, unsaleable fish are minced and/or used for fish sauce, so everything caught is used. Page 14

365 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Discard spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information Habitats Habitat Status (SICA only) No reported discarding of by-catch, and thus no need for a management strategy to reduce discards. All catch is landed, and fish that might otherwise be discarded is landed and sold as trash fish. While it is generally accepted and known that there is no reported discarding of by-catch, this is not monitored or corroborated. Thus some brief observational studies would be useful to prove that this is indeed the case. Potential purse seine interaction with ETP species is likely to be limited to dolphins and turtles, both of which are released alive prior to hauling nets. A high survivability rate (>90%) is expected. A risk assessment in the Pacific Ocean (Kirby, 2006) indicates that sharks are the highest risk group in purse seines at greatest risk are the low fecundity silky shark, short-finned mako, porbeagle, and oceanic whitetip rather than the more fecund blue sharks and hammerheads. These shark species are at more risk from the tuna fisheries than the small pelagic fisheries since they often trail schools of tuna for prey. Overall the risk of the small pelagic purse seine fishery is of intermediate concern, based primarily on shark interactions. Purse seiners claim that there are no interactions and that management of ETP interactions is unnecessary. In addition there are certain closed areas to protect turtle nesting beaches areas. However, interactions cannot be totally discounted, and a strategy would therefore be useful. There is comparatively good information on some ETP species, but monitoring of fisheries impacts is not a regular occurrence. Thus some brief observational studies would be useful Interactions between the purse seine fishery and critical habitats are thought to be low. There are no impacts for example on coral reefs, Page 15

366 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Habitat Management Habitat Information Ecosystems Ecosystem Status Ecosystem Management mangroves or seagrass areas. Certain areas are protected, however the specification of these areas is mainly associated with coral reef areas, rather than with larger marine areas. There are seasonal closured for the protection of spawning grounds which will also act as an impartial strategy. Please advise whether closed fishery areas for coral protection are closed to all gears, including purse seiners? Good level of information on extent of key habitats and their status such as coral reefs, seagrass and mangrove. However knowledge of the extent and status of other marine habitats is more limited. General areas targeted by the purse seine fishery are understood, but not adequately mapped or regularly monitored to allow full determination of the level of effort across different habitats. While this gear is unlikely to impact the habitat due to lack of bottom contact, the loss of gear or FADs have the potential to interact with sensitive habitats and such events should be better understood. While certain resources are depleted, the key elements of ecosystem structure are intact and the fishery in its current form is unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm. It is understood that the small pelagic recourses are in better condition than the demersal and shrimp fisheries and therefore total removals by the purse seine fleet will have less significant impacts to the overall ecosystem and food web structure. Thailand has committed to ecosystem management, but with limited resources at present implementation currently relates primarily to managing national park areas, including marine parks. Consequently there is less consideration of the wider marine ecosystem, or the impacts and need to manage the ecosystem impacts of the purse seine fishery per se. Management should be focused on how large removals of juvenile fish impacts the overall food web structure. This relates to the indirect effects of removing target and retained species from the ecosystem as current quantities and sizes classes of fish. Such management measures would also be appropriate to Retained management (2.1.2). Page 16

367 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Ecosystem Information ASEAN, 2009 A reasonable level of information on the status of the marine ecosystem including maps and distribution of endangered species and coral cover and condition of coral reefs. The general food web structure is also understood for the area and species groups involved in these fisheries. However, information and features are not regularly monitored and reported and no ecosystem modeling has been undertaken Trawl fishery PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Other Retained species Retained spp. Status Retained spp. management Retained spp. Information Discards Discard spp. Status Main retained species within the bottom otter trawl fishery are demersal finfish and shrimp. The status of these species are not as well understood or studied compared to the small and large pelagic species. In general it is considered that the demersal finfish and shrimp stocks are likely to be over exploited, in relation to the small pelagic species. Is there any additional information on the status of the various finfish and shrimp species also caught in these fisheries? There is no specific strategy in place for minimization of bycatch of other retained species. The seasonal closed area within Phang-nga Bay is for protection of small pelagic species spawning grounds and it is unknown whether this area and period is important for demersal finfish spawning. Minimum mesh sizes do not allow juvenile fish to escape and this is likely to lead towards growth overfishing. It is understood that there is no discarding in the purse seine fishery, and this the good information that is available on landed catch represents good levels of information on retained species. There are no discards in the trawl fishery this is evidenced by the large size range in landings. Small, unsaleable fish are minced and/or Page 17

368 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Discard spp. Management Discard spp. Information ETP species ETP spp. Status ETP spp. Management ETP spp. Information used for fish sauce, so everything caught is used. No reported discarding of by-catch, and thus no need for a management strategy to reduce discards. All catch is landed, and fish that might otherwise be discarded is landed and sold as trash fish. While it is generally accepted and known that there is no reported discarding of by-catch, this is not monitored or corroborated. Thus some brief observational studies would be useful to prove that this is indeed the case. Of the ETP species present within Thai waters, turtles are at most risk of incidental capture by demersal trawling gear. Five species of turtles are present in Thai waters: green, hawksbill, Olive Ridley, loggerhead and leatherback. However, over the past 15 years, the number of sea turtles laying eggs has been reduced by 90%. This drastic decline is in part thought to be due to over fishing and the capture of females preparing to nest. Trawls have occasional interactions with ETP species e.g. with turtle. There is conflicting information on whether TEDs are used by Thai vessels. This suggests that any legal requirement is not strictly applied. Due to the illegal hunting of sea turtles for human consumption, the Department of Fisheries issues a notification prohibiting fishing within 3 km off the coast. This also acts as a measure to reduce any potential interaction with turtles coming to shore to lay eggs. Several turtle nesting sites have also been declared National Parks and Fisheries Preservation Zones. The Government, in cooperation with the private sector and local communities, supports programs for the annual release of baby turtles to the Andaman Sea. However, while these programs and regulations are in place, it is reported that enforcement is weak. Furthermore, there is evidence (as stated under 2.3.1) that these measures are not working and further management (e.g. enforcing use of TEDs) is necessary. Page 18

369 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Habitats Habitat Status Habitat Management Habitat Information Ecosystems Ecosystem Status There is comparatively good information on the extent and distribution of ETP species including monitoring of sea turtles and dugong. However the true extent to which trawling interacts with ETP species is largely unknown. There is no data to show annual catch rates of turtles, for example. Furthermore, protection efforts associated with marine parks and not monitored comprehensively. CREP Thailand, 2008; Hutomo et al The distribution and condition of coral reefs in Thailand are well understood based on comprehensive surveys undertaken from 1995 to Approximately half are classified as in fair to excellent condition and half are poor or very poor condition. Damage to coral reefs in the Andaman Sea has predominately been caused by storms, crown-ofthorn starfish epidemic and the Tsunami in While trawling is not considered to be the primary fishing method causing destruction to habitats (compared to blasting) it has the potential to significantly impact coral and seagrass habitats and this may be to the point where irreversible harm is caused. So while impacts of trawling may be secondary to natural events and land-based impacts such as coastal development and pollution, they are still considered significant. There is some habitat management e.g. a closed area from Phuket to Ko Lanta Yai closed April 1 st to June 30 th. One reason for the closed area is given as habitat protection, but if sensitive habitats are damaged a seasonal closure would not be sufficient to allow recovery. Fishers are also proposing other closed areas that can be implemented at a local level. However there is no overall strategy for habitat management. Good level of information on extent of key habitats and their status such as coral reefs, seagrass and mangrove. However knowledge of the extent and status of other marine habitats is more limited. General areas targeted by the trawl fishery are understood, but not adequately mapped or regularly monitored to allow full determination of extent of potential habitat interactions with this gear type. The unselective nature of the trawl fishery and its capture of numerous Page 19

370 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Information juveniles of target and by-catch species, along with its impact on benthic habitats, means that the fishery is likely to cause serious and/or irreversible harm to the ecosystem. Thailand has committed to ecosystem management, but with limited resources at present this relates to managing national park areas, including marine parks. Consequently there is less consideration of the wider marine ecosystem and in particular with regard to trawling. Hutomo et al, 2009 A reasonable level of information on the status of the marine ecosystem including maps and distribution of endangered species and coral cover and condition of coral reefs. The general food web structure is also understood for the area and species groups involved in these fisheries. However, information and features are not regularly monitored and reported and no ecosystem modeling has been undertaken Key Weaknesses with Current Ecosystem Management Performance The current mesh size for purse seine and trawl gear (and some gill nets) is 1 inch (25mm), which results in high catch rates of juveniles. This is likely to have implications for recruitment and is likely to lead to growth overfishing and possibly ecosystem overfishing. At present this is considered more likely to impact demersal finfish, given their current status, however an increase in mesh size would be advisable across all gear types. The use of FADs and lights with purse seines results in less selective fisheries than would otherwise be the case. The lack of discarding within these fisheries is a key strength; however this is primarily due to the landing of all fish including juveniles which itself is due to a lack of management. The landing of juveniles with a low value catch is an inefficient use of the resource and potentially negatively impacts on stock status. However any measures introduced to manage target and retained species (such as TACs) should ensure that the negligible discard rate is maintained. There is little information on the ecological role of Indian mackerel, its response to natural fluctuations and the impact of its removal from the ecosystem. Ecosystem modeling has not been undertaken. Page 20

371 2.2.4 Key Recommendations to Address Ecosystem Performance Weaknesses Improved selectivity of gear (larger mesh sizes); Greater spatial management to support fisheries management objectives (i.e. protection of spawning areas and juveniles) as well as habitat protection, particularly relating to the trawl fishing activity; and More regular monitoring of ETP status and fishery interactions. Page 21

372 2.3 FISHERY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Governance and policy Legal Framework The Fisheries Act B.E (revised in 1953 and 1985) ( the Act ) The Act Governing the Right to Fish in Thai Waters B.E ( the Thai Waters Act ) The Thai Vessel Act B.E The Fisheries Act does observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood. The Act provides the overarching framework for fisheries management and sets out arrangements on types of fishing ground (sanctuary, leasable area, reserved area and open area), licensing and penalties and offences. The Act was revised in 1985 to strengthen the severity of penalties and to make domestic vessels responsible for any damage or expense created where they have violated the laws of a foreign state. However there are significant weaknesses in the Act and it requires substantial revision and modernization. The Act has recently been the subject of an extensive 8 year review, with a revised Act recently submitted to parliament for scrutiny. The revisions are aimed at modernizing the fisheries legislation and are expected to come into force during The Act has been used in the past to apply local co-management arrangements (e.g. Bang Saphan Bay Fisheries Co-Management) 1. The Thai Waters Act prohibits fishing by foreign flagged vessels. Only Thai nationals or companies are eligible to register fishing rights. In recent years, increasing responsibility for monitoring, control and enforcement have been delegated to the local authority (Sub-district authority or Ao Bo To) consistent with the policy of decentralization in the National Constitution B.E Under these arrangements, marine fishers are required to seek permission from Ao Bo To on the use of various fishing gears, as well as submit gears for examination 2. A number of other environment-related pieces of legislation also influence fisheries management including the Wildlife Reservation and Protection Act B.E. 1992, which lists a number of protected species, and the Enhancement and Conservation of the National Environmental Quality Act B.E. 1992, which provides for the protection wetlands amongst other things. Can details of this Act, the species it protects and associated management be provided. This would also allow further detail to 1 Ibid, DoF (2006) 2 Ibid, DoF (2006) Page 22

373 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference be added to P Consultation DoF, pers. comm. The roles and responsibilities of organizations and individuals who are involved in the management process are well defined and clearly understood by all relevant parties Long-term Objectives There is a fishery conservation committee (multi-stakeholder committee with Department of Fisheries [DoF], Community NGO and Fishermen s reps) which receives analysis and information from capture fisheries research each year. This is then debated and recommendations made to the DoF. DoF then changes rules (e.g. closed areas and seasons) where advised. An example of this practice is that research showed results of a closed season and proposed longer period, resulting in the closure now being over 3 months (April to June) not 2 as was the case. DoF (2008). The Master Plan Marine Fisheries Management of Thailand. Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. November Thailand s domestic and international fisheries policy objectives for marine capture fisheries are set out in a Master Plan for Marine Fisheries ( the Master Plan ), approved by cabinet and commencing from 2010 until This could be interpreted as long term objectives, but these laudable objectives such as to manage responsible and sustainable marine fisheries are supported by production targets rather than science-based reference points. While positive developments such as RBFM & EAFM are proposed, they are yet to be implemented. Due to overstaffing, much of the DoF budget is spent on salaries rather than activities to implement objectives. Despite longstanding evidence of overfishing and overcapacity, fisheries management policies continue to be influenced by production driven targets, including the promotion and development of distant water fishing fleets and few measures have been taken to effectively reduce fishing capacity Incentives The main management measures applied include a moratorium on the issues of new licenses, closed areas, closed seasons and minimum legal sizes. Minimum mesh sizes are also applied though there is general agreement they are too small. The heavy reliance on trash fish to support fish meal and other processing has meant that mesh sizes used in both the fish and shrimp trawl sectors have been maintained at a level that results in very high levels of bycatch. The high demand for trash fish incentivizes the use of small mesh and there has been little done to counteract this. No quotas or rights-based management measures are applied which might provide positive incentives. Page 23

374 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference Fishery specific Fishery Objectives Decision making processes Compliance & Enforcement FAO (2005). Report of the National Seminar on the Reduction and Management of Commercial Fishing Capacity in Thailand. Cha-Am, Thailand, May Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2005 No fishery specific management plans specifying long-term and fisheryspecific objectives have been developed for the main fisheries, or for Indian mackerel specifically, and few of the measures outlined in the CCRF in relation to management planning for example, the development of target and limit reference points appropriate to the stock and appropriate harvest control rules have been applied. Most fisheries remain open access, and previous attempts to introduce limited licensing systems have failed. No institutional barriers exist to incorporating scientific advice into management decision making, however it is not often done. Political and stakeholder views have historically been given greater weight than scientific advice, and the absence of take up of scientific advice by managers results in a disincentive for scientists to enthusiastically participate in management processes. DoF The main Centre for fisheries control is in Krabi. Patrols are conducted at sea to ensure fishing takes place in a legal manner. The Centre claims good compliance, but there is no evidence to support this. Management is devolved to a regional level to identify local issues and ensure compliance. However this can make enforcement disjointed and inconsistent. There are approximately 20 pilot MCS groups operating at the Tambon level. These groups are trained and provided with basic equipment binoculars, life jackets and radios to police their own zones. The initiative for the MCS pilot projects came from fishers and follows the successful EU-funded CHARM project in which community groups were engaged in CBFM. No information was available regarding the level of compliance or infringement in the fishery, but enforcement of certain regulations is understood to be limited Research Plan AFRDC, pers. comm.. The evidence base provided for this assessment shows there has been extensive work on fisheries science with a comparatively good level of research capacity to support the Andaman Sea part of the BOBLME Page 24

375 PI Title Weak Intermediate Good Reference region. There is a plan in terms of maintaining landings data and conducting regular interviews with fishermen, but resources are limited, and there is no fisheries-specific research plan for Indian mackerel Given the multi-species, multi-gear nature of Thai domestic fisheries, a key need identified by MFRDB staff is increased capacity in multi-species stock assessment techniques. However some scientific information is available that could be used to inform fisheries management, but there is no evidence that it does directly do so. To be more applicable, assessments would require to be on a undertaken on a regular basis to provide timely inputs; currently information is derived from ad hoc research Performance Evaluation DoF (2008). The Master Plan Marine Fisheries Management of Thailand. It is not evident that the Masterplan has a clear review and evaluation elements that will address shortcomings or changed priorities. These would be required to evaluate the performance of the fishery specific management system against its objectives Key Weaknesses with Current Management Performance The overarching institutional challenge in this category is to improve the scientific basis for the management of Thailand s fisheries. To date, fisheries management arrangements appear to have been largely influenced by production-driven goals, rather than the sustainable capacity of the target stocks and ecosystems. The institutional structure and legislative framework is in place, along with a high level strategy to substantially improve fisheries management. However, it is not clear that the political will and so sufficient resources are available to achieve those improvements, particularly if longer-term management means more limits on fishing opportunities. It is also evident that Thailand s fishing fleets are active throughout the BOBLME region and some responsibility for the conduct of these vessels rests with the flag state as well as the EEZ state where they are operating. The Master Plan states sustainable objectives within its own waters, but production targets remain and it also seeks to develop distant water fisheries Key Recommendations to Address Management Weaknesses Set and implement a national long-term management plan for small pelagics based on sustainable exploitation of resources; Improving data collection, collation and cross checking systems; Design a comprehensive plan for future assessments, undertaken on a regular basis; Ensure improved scientific information is used as a basis for objective resource management decisions; and Develop regional agreements to ensure Thailand s offshore vessels support other country s management measures. Page 25

376 2.4 SUMMARY INDIAN MACKEREL The table below provides a summary of the performance for Indian mackerel in Thailand Table 4: Summary performance table for Indian Mackerel in Thailand Unit of Assessment Thailand Principle 1: Stock status Principle 2: Ecosystem impacts Principle 3: Governance & Management Outcome Harvest strategy Retained Bycatch ETP Habitat Ecosystem Governance & Policy Fishery specific mang Stock status Reference points Stock rebuilding if necessary Performance of Harvest Strategy Harvest control rules and tools Information and monitoring Assessment Retained status Retained management Retained info / monitoring Discards status Discards management Discards info / monitoring Species Gear ETP status ETP management ETP info / monitoring Habitat status Habitat management Habitat: info / monitoring Ecosystem status Ecosystem strategy Ecosystem info / monitoring Legal customary framework Consultation, roles & responsibilities Long-term objectives Incentives for sustainable fishing Fishery-specific objectives Decision-making processes Compliance & enforcement Research plan Management performance evaluation I. mackerel Purse seine I. mackerel Btm otter trawl Page 26

377 Appendix A: References ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations Fourth State of Environment Report Chantawong, Status of Small Pelagic Fish Resources and Fisheries in Thai Waters by Praulai Chantawong, Andaman Sea Research Institute. Chullasorn Status of pelagic fisheries and resources in the Gulf of Thailand. Technical Paper No. 1/1998. Marine Division, Department of Fisheries. 82 p. (in Thai) CREP, Thailand s Coastal Resources and Environment Profile Department of Marine and Coastal Resources of Thailand. Department of fisheries The marine fisheries statistics: base on the sample survey ( ). Fishery Statistics Analysis And Research Group, Information Technology Center, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Department of fisheries Thai fishing vessels statistics No. 17/2004. Fishery Statistics Analysis And Research Group, Information Technology Center, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. 114 p. Department of fisheries Thai fishing vessels statistics No. 2/2009. Fishery Statistics Analysis And Research Group, Information Technology Center, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. 112 p. Hutomo, M., Nontji, A. and Dirhamsyah Regional Coastal Resources and Environment Profile for ASEAN Region. Institute for Science of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. Krajangdara, T., Puntuleng P., Chalee P. and Hussadee P Reproductive Biology of Short mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma (Bleeker, 1851) and Indian mackerel R. kanagurta (Cuvier, 1816) in Thai water. Technical paper No. 19/2007. Marine Fisheries Research and Development Bureau, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. 36 p. MONE, 2005 Thailand State of Environment Report in 2005 Sumontha M., Boonsuk S., Panjarat S., Jaiyen T. and Ritthisaman J Stock Assessment of Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta (Curvier, 1816)) along the Andaman Sea Coast of Thailand. in press. Page 27

378